Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed.

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I appeal for brief supplementary questions and brief replies—at least, as brief as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Courts (Witness Attendance)

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to make attendance at court as a witness less expensive, less onerous and less uncomfortable than it is at present.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): The rates of allowances which may be paid to witnesses in indictable criminal cases are increased periodically as appropriate. The police are advised to pay the same rates to prosecution witnesses in non-indictable cases.
With regard to comfort, if the hon. Member has any specific points in mind I shall be glad to have them examined.

Mr. Price: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that over the whole range of court attendance and court procedure the ordinary lay witness —I emphasise "lay witness"—receives

the least consideration? Is she aware that that fact does not encourage members of the general public to come forward as witnesses? Will the Minister look at the matter again and try to improve conditions for witnesses?

Dr. Summerskill: I repeat that, if the hon. Gentleman can provide some specific information about specific courts, I shall look at it.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Crown Courts and in the High Court, since the Courts Act and the creation of many more judges, it is often the judges who have to stop work early—because there are so few cases in the lists—to prevent witnesses and jurors from hanging around too long? Is it not the fact that waiting time for witnesses and jurors has decreased substantially since the Courts Act 1971 was passed?

Dr. Summerskill: It is always difficult to assess the time any case will take in court. There is an unpredictable element, and witnesses cannot be warned how long they will need to be in court. I agree with the points that my hon. and learned Friend has made. With regard to expense and comfort, that raises the question of allowances and new buildings. I shall be happy to look at any particular case my hon. and learned Friend has in mind.

Socialist Workers Party

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary Of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Socialist Workers Party about violence at political meetings.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): None, Sir.

Mr. Brotherton: Bearing in mind that virtually all the political violence in this country comes from parties of the Left, such as the Socialist Workers Party and the National Front, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea to have representatives of those parties round the table agreeing to eschew violence? After all, both those parties of the Left have much in common with the Tribune Group.

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic leads him to that conclusion,


he must have been educated at a minor public school.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that last night racialists attacked Asian workers with bricks as they were leaving their factory with such violence that nine of the victims had to be taken to hospital? Surely someone must have made a note of one of the car numbers. Can we expect a police arrest shortly?

Mr. Rees: Last evening there was a fight between workers in two separate factories. I have a report here which tells me that the police are dealing with the matter and investigating it.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the attacks in the East End of London have been serious? Is it not important that they should be roundly condemned by everyone in public life?

Mr. Rees: I am pleased that that has been said. It accords with the majority view in the House.

Police (Recruitment)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the current rate of male recruitment to the police.

Mr Gow: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total strength of the police force in England and Wales at the latest available date; what was the total at the same date in 1977; and by how many the total strength of the police has increased or decreased since 1st January 1978.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: At 31st May 1978, the strength of the police in England and Wales was 107,875. This compares with 109,338 on 31st May 1977. The net loss in strength from January to May this year was 326. The Government are anxious to reverse the trend both by encouraging recruitment and by reducing wastage.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Home Secretary aware that recruitment is not fully offsetting the loss of experienced officers by retirement and resignation? Does he recognise that this is a matter of pay and conditions? Does he further recognise that it is the Government's respon-

sibility to provide our country with the protection it needs? Will he implement the Edmund-Davies Committee's report in full when it is published?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a later Question on that matter on the Order Paper. Would the Home Secretary like to reply to two out of three?

Mr. Rees: I take your advice, Mr. Speaker. There is a problem of wastage. I hope that it is only pay that is the problem.

Mr. Gow: At a time when crime of every kind is increasing, does the Home Secretary take seriously the reduction in the manpower of the police, and will he understand that there is an urgent need to reverse this trend and that pay is a key element.

Mr. Rees: Of course pay is a key element. But I point out that there are 7,000 more policemen now than there were four years ago. A study of past figures shows that there have been ups and downs in police manpower. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if he thinks that it is only a question of pay and that there are no other problems for the police, he is wrong. When the report is published—I have sent it for publication—he will see that we were right to have a deep-seated report on this matter rather than play around as the Opposition were doing last autumn.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend repeat the figure he has just given and tell the House the precise number, in thousands, of policemen who are employed now compared with the number when the Government took office? Will he confirm that between 1970 and 1974 many Labour Party supporters were extremely concerned because the Conservative Government were extremely neglectful of police interests?

Mr. Rees: There are more policemen now than there were four years ago. I simply say that the problem is deeper than merely pay, even though that is vitally important. The reports we are having prepared are not only on pay but on negotiating machinery and the role of the Police Federation. There is something basic which needs to be looked at, and that is what we have embarked upon.

Mr. David Howell: I am glad the Home Secretary recognises that, although pay is vital, there are many other questions affecting the need for improved policing. Will he tell the House how he intends to tackle these problems? Does he not agree that one of them is to get closer co-operation between the police and the community at grass-roots level as well as at higher administrative level? Does he not agree, further, that another problem is the whole question of the role—and I hope it is a valuable one—of policewomen in the police service? These are major issues that need to be tackled. What is the Home Office doing about them?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that part of the fundamental question is the role of policewomen. He is simply hooking on to something that has been in the press recently. It goes far deeper than that. I am not a Minister of the Interior. The Home Office is not a Ministry of the Interior. I believe that chief constables are arranging for closer contact with the community throughout the country.

Mr. Rose: Will my right hon. Friend accept, notwithstanding the increase in numbers and the difficulties and constraints of the pay guidelines, that there could be a tremendous crisis of morale in the police force, which could be dangerous to a democratic society? Will he recognise that it is vitally important, therefore, that the Edmund-Davies report be implemented as soon as possible? Will he urge the Cabinet to find a method of implementing it so as to prevent wastage?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already pulled up another hon. Gentleman. Question No. 15 asks the Secretary of State about implementation of the Edmund-Davies report. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two supplementary questions on that Question.

Mr. Rose: Will my right hon. Friend take action to prevent wastage and increase recruitment?

Mr. Rees: Yes, I certainly will do that. It is a major part of my job. But the matter which we are not yet going to discuss is an important part of that.

Mr. Mayhew: Does the Home Secretary think that the answer given on 29th

June, showing that resignations from the police in the first quarter of this year were 30 per cent. up on last year and 140 per cent. up on the year before, shows confidence in his administration of his office?

Mr. Rees: I do not believe that it has to do with the competence of my administration. If the hon. and learned Gentleman believes that, he knows nothing about the problems in the police force. I have talked to many policemen recently. They are getting fed up with the way in which law and order is becoming entangled with a populist political policy.

Criminal Damage

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the crime of causing malicious damage.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): The latest available information is for the first three months of 1978. In that period, 72,600 offences of criminal damage were recorded by the police in England and Wales.

Mr. Janner: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures are caused not merely by an insufficiency of policemen to cope with the problem on the ground but by very deep-rooted social problems, and in particular the building of huge housing estates without sufficient facilities for young people to use their leisure time in an active, lively and useful way? Is he co-ordinating with other Government Departments to improve those facilities and so lessen this crime?

Mr. John: My right hon. Friend has held a series of discussions not only with Government Departments but with police forces and people in the community who are concerned with this problem. No other crime is quite so dependent upon social conditions. It is certainly not the case that a criminal law can of itself solve the problem of criminal damage.

Police Station Closures (London)

Mr John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis with regard to the proposed closure of police


stations and offices in the Greater London area.

Dr. Summerskill: The Commissioner has kept my right hon. Friend informed of the studies he is currently undertaking of local policing arrangements in the Metropolitan Police district, one aspect of which includes the future of existing police stations. No proposals have as yet been made.

Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Lady aware that among the proposed closures is the West Wickham office in my constituency? At a time of growing crime and violence, would it not be the height of folly to close down an office which provides a point of contact and reassurance for the general public? As the shortage of police manpower was given as the original reason for the survey to which the hon. Lady has referred, could she now persuade the Commissioner at least to defer the implementation of this closure until we see the effect on police recruitment of the forthcoming pay rises?

Dr. Summerskill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no firm decisions to close any particular station have yet been taken, as I said in my answer, and that if there was such a decision there would be consultations with the police and with civil staff representative organisations. I can only say that there is no such proposal.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend think that there is any relationship between the apparent drop in police numbers and the very large number of people who—according to the major article in The Times yesterday—are joining private organisations such as Securicor, where, for instance, we are told that about 150,000 people are involved? This seems such a massive number that one wonders whether there is any relationship between these trends.

Dr. Summerskill: I think I can say that there is no relationship. If he compares the figures carefully and notes the times when these transfers were taken, my hon. Friend will see that there is no relationship.

Mr. Boscawen: Has the hon. Lady seen a report in the press today about a festival sites welfare officer being appointed, at a cost to her Department of £7,000, to attend three pop festivals?

Does she think that that is a right priority in the use of her funds?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about the closure of police stations in London. Has the hon. Gentleman a supplementary question about police stations in London?

Mr. Boscawen: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the closure of police stations on the one hand and the appointment of such officers on the other shows a wrong sense of priorities?

Immigrants (Detention and Deportation Cases)

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants special funds additional to its present income for the purpose of providing adequate advice facilities and legal support for those people detained at an attempted port of entry into the United Kingdom and for those citizens threatened with deportation.

Mr. John: Any request for such funds would be considered.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful for that encouraging reply. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, with the intensification of immigration control, much of the appeals procedure is being stretched to the limit and, indeed, much is now going by default because there are insufficient counsellors able to advise immigrants on their appeal rights? Does my hon. Friend recognise also that most Members of Parliament who have these problems in their constituencies are now so overwhelmed by the number of cases that some additional facilities will have to be made available so that they may adequately advise their constituents and use professionals to take these cases to the appeals procedure? Will the Minister make facilities and amenities available to Members in order that this may be proceeded with?

Mr. John: I think that, first, my hon. Friend would be well advised to talk to the JCWI about whether it wants a grant, because hitherto its view has been that it wanted neither a grant nor facilities in this matter. As for being overwhelmed, as someone who has come new into this field I quite understand the


point that my hon. Friend makes, but there is no evidence that appellants are being unrepresented through lack of funds. If the JCWI makes an application for a grant, we shall consider it.

Sir A. Meyer: Is there any connection between shortage of funds or policemen and the fact that the detention centre for immigrants at Harmondsworth has been farmed out to a commercial security organisation?

Mr. John: No, Sir.

Criminal Statistics

Mr. Durant: asked the secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest criminal statistics for the first six months of 1978.

Mr. John: The number of indictable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in the first quarter of 1978 was 631,000. Information is not yet available for the second quarter.

Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware that in the Thames Valley alone the crime figures have increased by 11 per cent.? Are these figures based on indictable offences as such or on the number of individuals? In other words, if someone has committed seven offences, does that show as seven or as one?

Mr. John: My answer specified the number of indictable offences, and one person can have more than one indictable offence to his credit—or discredit. I would point out that, whereas the Thames Valley figure may be 11 per cent. up, the overall figure is 3 per cent. up. Although that is by no means encouraging, it is a considerable diminution in the rise as compared with the year before.

Mr. Loyden: What has the Home Office done in deciding how much is due to a higher crime rate as such and how much is due to a higher rate of detection?

Mr. John: This is one of those imponderable questions, because it is due not only to a higher rate of detection but to a higher rate of reporting. One could double the apparent crime rate without a single further crime being committed if more people reported crimes. One can never disentangle these matters. Where

crimes are detected, there are adequate powers available to magistrates and the courts to punish offenders.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that only one in three crimes is reported, that of those reported only one in five results in prosecution, and that where there is a prosecution one in two of those who plead not guilty is acquitted? Are the Government aware that they have been responsible for more lawlessness and dishonesty than practically any other Government who have existed in this country?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, more certain about everything than any other Member of the House is about anything.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend consider the possible correlation between the increase in crime in the western world and the portrayal of crime on television? Is television having an impact, particularly on the younger generation, and will he consider making representations to the television authorities to keep crime off the programmes to a greater extent than at present?

Mr. John: We have in our possession and available to the public two reports which come to diametrically opposed conclusions about this. There is always a great danger in picking on a single cause as being the key to the crime wave. The more we stutdy crime and the more experience we have, the more we should know that there is no single factor which one can isolate against any other.

Official Secrets Act (White Paper)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to publish his White Paper on the Official Secrets Act.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Shortly.

Mr. Price: Has my right hon. Friend read the excellent article in The Guardian today by his former political adviser, Mr. Roger Darlington, which makes clear the enormous gap between the Government's proposals on official secrets and Labour's manifesto commitment? When do the Government intend to reform not only section 2 but section 1 of the Act and provide an official Freedom of Information Act?

Mr. Rees: Our commitment was in the Gracious Speech, and it is that matter which affects the House. However, I advise my hon. Friend to wait and see what is contained in the White Paper. After that is published, I shall be most interested to hear from my hon. Friend—with his vast experience—how this legislation works in other parts of the world.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the prime weakness of the Official Secrets Act is its failure to distinguish between the revelation of secrets which injure the security of the country and the revelation of secrets which would merely embarrass the Government? Is it true, as reported in today's article in The Guardian by Mr. Darlington, that the forthcoming White Paper will make no contribution towards the advance of open Government?

Mr. Rees: I shall not comment on the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question. However, with regard to the first part I remind him that I served on the Franks Committee. I advise him to read the report of that committee. He has obviously read only one chapter of it.

Miss Richardson: Does not the Home Secretary agree that there is widespread public anxiety over the "catch-all" provisions of the Official Secrets Act, not only in section 2 but, as has already been referred to, in section 1? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be grave dissatisfaction, probably on both sides of the House, if the White Paper follows the predictions of Roger Darlington and is limited in the way that he suggests? All of us want a Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Rees: As somebody or other once said, "Let us wait and see."

Corporal Punishment (Isle of Man)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Home Department what action he intends to take following the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the use of corporal punishment in the Isle of Man is degrading and inhuman treatment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The judgment found the penalty in the case in question to be degrading punishment. It did not find it to be inhuman. As I indicated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on 25th April, I am considering the implications of the judgment in consultation with the Government of the Isle of Man and the authorities in Jersey and Guernsey.

Mr. Canavan: It is not a bit hypocritical for us to condemn the use of corporal punishment upon British subjects in places such as Saudi Arabia when we are virtually the only country in Europe which tolerates the use of judicial corporal punishment on the Isle of Man and so-called educational corporal punishment in our schools system? As the European Court is at present considering another complaint from a Scottish parent about the use of corporal punishment in schools, may I ask that the Government take immediate legislative steps to stop this brutal practice, because we are in danger of being publicly branded as the barbarians of Europe?

Mr. Rees: I do not know about our being hypocritical. I can tell my hon. Friend that I am against corporal punishment. There is a proper method of proceeding with this matter. The Isle of Man is not responsible to the House of Commons in the normal fashion. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will allow the matter to be dealt with. Ultimately, I believe, the matter will be resolved.

Mr. McCrindle: If we are to reject corporal punishment—as many of us on both sides of the House would wish—is there not a need to reassure the public that alternative methods, including a greater use of short, sharp sentences, are being vigorously pursued and supported by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Rees: I should be interested to know what short, sharp sentences are. Certainly there would have to be alternative ways of dealing with people who commit crime.

Police Pay

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the Edmund-Davies report on police pay.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government are committed to accept the conclusions of the Edmund-Davies Committee on pay, subject only to consideration of the phasing of their implementation. I shall make a statement when the committee's report is presented to Parliament and published.

Mr. Finsberg: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does he agree, however, that it is unfortunate that there appears to be yet another leakage, as there was yesterday of the Fairford United States tanker proposal? Will he investigate that and give the House an assurance that he will not delay making a statement merely because there may be printing problems in getting the documents ready? The police force and the country really cannot wait.

Mr. Rees: There are no printing problems. I have the report here. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could read it in one evening and get it right by the following morning, but I have sent it for printing. Here it is, page upon page. We have already said that we shall accept the report. The House is not waiting to know whether we shall accept it, because I have said that we do. But it is surely proper that I should have time to consider it. As for the leak—if that is what it is—I suppose that there are other places of leaking than through Government Departments.

Mr. MacKay: Does the Home Secretary agree that the best deterrent to violent criminals is detection? If he agrees, as I believe he does, will he assure the House that he will implement the Edmund-Davies findings as early as possible and not wait for Treasury approval as to pay policy?

Mr. Rees: There is no question of Treasury approval. I have told the House that I shall accept the report. I said that last year. Its implementation will be from 1st September. I have assured those involved that I will bring in the regulations and that we shall accept the report in full.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In full?

Mr. Rees: We have already said that. The Government have accepted it in full, and we shall implement it from 1st September.

Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), when speaking in my constituency recently, said that because of the rise in crime committed by evil people, sometimes as young as four years, 20,000 extra policemen were needed? Can the Home Secretary say what that would cost in terms of the Edmund-Davies report's findings?

Mr. Rees: I could not do that arithmetic even with my education at the excellent State school that I went to. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the figures are right.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government accept the Edmund-Davies report. I am pleased to hear that. He also said that he will implement it on 1st September. Will he implement it in full on 1st September?

Mr. Rees: I shall do what I said last year. I said then that we would accept the report, whatever it said. I added "subject to phasing", and I shall make an announcement to the House.

Fire Service

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to report progress towards the agreement which would give the Fire Brigades Union a 42-hour week; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Summerskill: I understand that detailed proposals were tabled by the employers' side at the meeting of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades on 2nd June and considered again on 9th June. At a further meeting on 14th June, there was failure to reach agreement on the proposals and the employers' side decided to refer the matter to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. It is better now that the possibilities of the conciliation and arbitration machinery be pursued.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of Tory-controlled local authorities refusing to make an agreement on the 42-hour week with the Fire Brigades Union, a very deep sense of dangerous frustration is developing in the ranks of the union? In view of that information, when is my hon. Friend prepared to step in and give a lead to the local authorities in settling the matter?

Dr. Summerskill: It is to be hoped that both sides will resume negotiations as soon as possible, determined that they should be constructivce and that they should discuss the possible terms of reference for third party assistance.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Has the Fire Brigades Union also agreed to go to ACAS for arbitration?

Dr. Summerskill: At the moment the union has not formally agreed, but it is certainly considering that possibility.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Fire Brigades Union members in East Anglia feel absolutely betrayed by the stand taken by Tory councils in particular throughout the country on this issue? Does she recognise that unless early action is taken there is danger of serious damage being done to the fire service as a whole?

Dr. Summerskill: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a serious situation. The hopeful aspect is that recruitment is now proceeding in all areas of the country. It is essential that these negotiations should be completed satisfactorily very soon.

Public Sector Employment (Coloured Persons)

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the refusal of employers in the public sector to employ coloured British citizens because they were unable to prove their British nationality or residence status when they applied for employment.

Mr. John: None, Sir.

Mr. Litterick: Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine, Mr. R. D. Butcher, recently applied for employment at the post office in Birmingham and was refused work? Is he further aware that on form ES12, which is returned to the local employment office, it was stated by the interviewing officer that he would not employ this man because he did not produce a passport or a letter from the Home Office to prove his residence status. Is this not something remarkably like an informal pass law system for black people in Britain?

Mr. John: I have had a letter from the JCWI on behalf of Mr. Butcher,

but it did not refer to employment in the public sector. I am glad my hon. Friend has specified that. I shall be replying to the organisation and to my hon. Friend in the light of his Question today. The present indications are that there are no restrictions on Mr. Butcher's employment or length of stay in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Minister aware that there is increasing evidence of Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes insisting on the submission of birth certificates with tax returns and then keeping those birth certificates when they relate to people who have come here under the Immigration Act? Is this not a deplorable situation? Will he investigate it?

Mr. John: If the hon. Gentleman will give me the evidence, I shall certainly look at it. I have had no such evidence submitted to me direct.

Mr. Thorne: Has the Secretary of State had time to read the newspaper cutting I sent to him earlier today regarding the deportation of Mrs. Khullar and her two-year-old child? Is he now satisfied with his work?

Mr. John: My right hon. Friend has had the cutting. I cannot say whether he has read it, but I promise that he will be in touch with my hon. Friend about this case.

Prison Population

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has to reduce the size of the prison population.

Mr. John: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his similar Question on 4th May.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not my hon. Friend accept that we have one of the highest prison populations in Western Europe and that many of those who are in prison are inadequate and petty offenders? Does he accept that now is the time to take a far more positive and imaginative approach to getting out of our prisons those offenders who are mentally ill, and particularly children under 16 on remand? Will he look again at the idea of introducing a system of remission for petty and inadequate offenders who are not eligible for parole?

Mr. John: We certainly have taken some steps about petty offenders by removing imprisonment for simple drunkenness. We are looking at a number of the things that my hon. Friend has mentioned. However, what he and I regard as self-evident is not always so regarded by everyone, as some of the ill-informed comment in the newspapers of last week showed.

Mr. Emery: Will the Minister consider, in the attempt to reduce crime, the system introduced by the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall? Is he aware that the chief constable has had a police officer assigned to a large number of schools in Devon and Cornwall, working with the children and getting them to understand how the police force is working on their side rather than working against them? Does the Minister appreciate that this arrangement has proved immensely successful and ought to be used in more parts of the country?

Mr. John: A year ago I met the chief constable concerned, with the local authorities, and found that the co-operation in Devon and Cornwall between all those responsible for the welfare of children was impressive and was likely to diminish crime in the counties.

Mr. Lee: Will my hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of community service orders? This is a new system, as hon. Members know. Does he agree that the judiciary should be encouraged to extend the application of these orders, because that would serve in one way, even if only marginally, to reduce the prison population?

Mr. John: We think highly of community service orders, as do those who impose the punishments, as is clear since they make so many of them. We certainly encourage their use wherever appropriate.

Remand Centres

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently held in remand centres.

Dr. Summerskill: On 31st May 1978, there were 2,390 persons in remand centres in England and Wales.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: How much overcrowding do those figures reveal? Second, can the Minister comment on the advice given by a Home Office official to Newbury magistrates recently not to sentence a young person to a remand centre because of overcrowding? Can she say how frequently such advice is given?

Dr. Summerskill: I agree that there is overcrowding and that there is an urgent need for more remand centres. In fact, three remand centres will be providing extra places in future. Glen Parva will provide 360 and Thorp Arch and Low Newton will also provide more places. It is the Government's firm intention, as soon as possible, to see the end of the remanding of people under 17 years to Prison Department establishments, but that requires accommodation elsewhere.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my hon. Friend aware that she said such things more than four years ago? Is she not ashamed that there are still today in prisons and remand centres schoolboys and schoolgirls who have not been convicted of any offence? Will she now take far more purposeful steps than she and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been prepared to take in the past to ensure that no schoolchild goes into prison on remand?

Dr. Summerskill: In the past four years, within the economic restraints which the Government have faced, there has been much improvement in the number of places in remand centres. But we shall need still more before a satisfactory position is reached.

Metropolitan Police (Commissioner's Report)

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis his report for the year 1977.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sims: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that London Members were very impressed with the Commissioner's report, which contained cogent comments on the current crime and policing situation? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Commissioner the extremely interesting research into the abuse of bail? Also, does he feel that that


abuse of bail will increase or decrease as a result of the implementation of the Bail Act?

Mr. Rees: It is a very good resport and it was submitted to me as the police authority. Regarding its timing, the hon. Gentleman has noticed what other people did not notice—that the Commissioner was referring to a period before the Bail Act became operative. I have looked at the matter. From his own experience, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that if that was the situation before the Bail Act—I make no other comment—it is up to me to discover whether the new Bail Act will have an effect. As far as I can see, it will not change the situation. The basic question is for the magistrates and others. It is not a matter for the Executive. If there is a problem, it should be brought to the notice of those who grant bail, and that includes the police.

Mr. Mayhew: As regards the working of the Bail Act, does the Home Secretary recall that the financial and explanatory memorandum to the Bill said that it would have no significant effect on public service manpower? Is it not the case that in the inner London magistrates' courts alone the establishment of clerical officers has just been increased by 37? Is that not due to the Bail Act?

Mr. Rees: I think that it would be better if the hon. and learned Gentleman waited for an answer on the next Question, because that is where it applies.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the section dealing with recruitment of police in the metropolitan area from ethnic minorities, especially in areas where there is a large ethnic mixture? If he is unable to improve upon the campaign to recruit from ethnic groups, will he consider giving public relations work to people who may not become police officers but who could do something in those areas?

Mr. Rees: I discussed this with the Commissioner. There has been an increase in the number of people from ethnic minorities joining the police. I hope, and the Commissioner hopes, that this will continue. My hon. Friend will also find that the kind of work mentioned by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is taking place in the Metropoli-

tan Police. I suggest that my hon. Friend talks to the Commissioner, because I know that he would be pleased to have any advice about my hon. Friend's area.

Mr. David Howell: This Question is about discussions with the Commissioner. Has the Home Secretary discussed with the Commissioner the Edmund-Davies report which he has in front of him? Has he discussed it with journalists, who seem to know all about it, according to the newspapers? As he was waving it about in the Chamber a little while ago would it not now be courteous to let the House of Commons see it straight away?

Mr. Rees: I do not think that courtesy arises. I was trying to show that if there is a report of that size it would be a good idea if I had a look at it before I discussed it with anybody, other wise, we should have the classical instantaneous response from the hon. Gentleman. I discussed this with the Commissioner the other evening.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC and CBI.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is attending a meeting of the European Council in Bremen, I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend met representatives of the TUC and CBI when he took the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 1st February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Stoddart: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he give them a copy of the report in The Guardian this morning, which tells of a letter sent by a redundant Tory agent to the Sheffield Morning Telegraph, describing the present Tory leadership as the most disastrous he could remember,
devoid of any constructive policies … and having done nothing to assist in the economic recovery of the nation"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must address their supplementary questions to subjects for which the Minister


is responsible. He is not responsible for what the Opposition do.

Mr. Stoddart: I perfectly well understand that, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that when the Prime Minister meets the TUC and the CBI he should bring these matters to the attention of those bodies. I conclude by saying [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that the Prime Minister is described—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot even hear the hon. Gentleman from here. But I think that the Lord President has heard enough.

Mr. Foot: I should be glad to send on the report, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to the bodies he has mentioned. I must say that I think that the comment quoted went a little far. After all, the gentleman concerned said that this was the most disastrous Conservative leadership that he had ever known. I think that that embraces Neville Chamberlain as well as all subsequent leaders. I should have thought that that was going a bit far.

Mr. Whitelaw: May I raise a matter which is important for the country and for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, as is his right hon. Friend? Will the Prime Minister when he nexts meets the CBI and the TUC, be in a position to tell them what the Government intend to do about dividends, because the Government are running out of time on this crucial issue?

Mr. Foot: There will be discussions in the next week or two on these matters. I have no doubt that dividends will be one of the subjects which will arise in those discussions.

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House before we rise?

Mr. Foot: I do not have anything to add to what I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House on the subject.

Mr. McNamara: Before he nexts meets the TUC, will the Prime Minister have an opportunity to examine the Government's role as an employer, to look in particular at the role of industrial civil servants and the wages they receive, to compare them with some of the increases that

were announced earlier this week and to do something about the lower paid?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate that there is strong feeling among industrial civil servants. This has been expressed in the discussions and negotiations which have gone on. I have no doubt that that will be taken into account by the Government. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is calling attention to those representations, which are very much in our minds at the moment.

Mr. Michael Latham: Could the Lord President have another attempt at answering the supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) a moment ago? Is it not absolutely plain from the Prime Minister's speech last weekend that the Government have now decided to impose a stage 4, irrespective of what the unions want to do?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions which are not apparent in any sense whatsoever. In reply to his right hon. Friend, I indicated that there would be discussions between the Government and the TUC and the CBI on these matters, and I have no doubt that that will be one of the items that will arise in those discussions.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6th July.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
Earlier today my right hon. Friend presided at a meeting of the Cabinet before leaving for the meeting of the European Council in Bremen.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Lord President ensure that the Prime Minister gets an opportunity to read the annual report of the British Steel Corporation, which makes depressing and grim reading for the future of employment in Scotland? Does he agree with the judgment that it makes the closure of Glengarnock works far more certain and that the Hunterston direct reduction works will probably be opened only to test what is termed the technological efficiency?


May we have an assurance that this matter will be fully debated in the House before any final decisions are taken?

Mr. Foot: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already studied the report of the British Steel Corporation. There have, of course, been discussions in the House about that already. I expect the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is considerable investment by the British Steel Corporation in Scotland, and that without that Scotland would have suffered even more severely from the slump that most other steel industries throughout the world have had to bear during this period.

Mr. Litterick: Has my right hon. Friend read the article written by Mr. Alex Hartley which recently appeared in The Guardian? That article gave in considerable detail the news that the Economic League is running a blacklist system for all its member firms. Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister take up this matter not only with the Economic League but, in particular, with the Confederation of British Industry and with Opposition Members who are directors of firms participating in this blacklist system?

Mr. Foot: I read that article in The Guardian, although I was even more attracted by the previous article in The Guardian to which reference was made. I do not know whether there will be time for this matter to be raised in the discussions with the CBI, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it raises an important question of civil liberties, and we are prepared to look at it in that sense.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Lord President aware of the Prime Minister's sudden and new interest in the family? If he is, can he explain why food prices have doubled under the Labour Government? Is he still confident that food prices will increase by less than 10 per cent. in the coming year?

Mr. Foot: The Prime Minister's interest in the family goes back for many more years than that. I cannot remember the exact date, but it is a great deal longer. I am sure, too, that the Prime Minister's interest in doing all that we can to keep down food prices goes back over a long period. I only wish that we had received

some co-operation from the Opposition when we joined the Common Market and encountered fresh difficulties.

Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend know whether the Prime Minister, before setting off for Bremen, managed to find time to read the article by Mr. Roger Darlington, formerly a special assistant to the Home Secretary, to which reference was made on an earlier Question? That article shows that the forthcoming White Paper on the Official Secrets Act will be timid, broken-backed and useless.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Just like the Government.

Mr. Mikardo: Even at this late hour, will my right hon. Friend consult the Prime Minister to see whether some improvements can be made to that White Paper?

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has read that article, but I read it this morning with considerable interest. I do not believe that it covers all the matters that are dealt with in the White Paper, because when the White Paper is published my hon. Friend will see that it opens up other possibilities beyond those that are discussed in Mr. Darlington's article.
I do not say that the White Paper goes as far as my hon. Friend and others wish, and I know that they have made strong representations that we should have a White Paper that goes further, but I ask my hon. Friend, and others, to consider what is proposed in the White Paper, because if they do they will see that it leaves open the prospect of dealing with some of these matters in the future.

Mr. Shersby: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6th July.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Shersby: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the deep concern of the House about the low morale of people who work in the National Health Service? Will he tell


the House what steps the Government intend to take to raise that morale, to reduce industrial disputes and to improve service to patients?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member and others may have seen that my right hon. Friend attended a function concerned with the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service. Although there are many aspects of the National Health Service that we should like to be improved, and although I know that most of my hon. Friends would like to see a great deal more spent upon the Health Service—I do not know whether that applies to hon. Members opposite—I do not believe it right that the country or the outside world should be given the impression that the Health Service has not had many great successes. I think that the matter should be approached in that spirit. It was in that sense that the Prime Minister spoke when he discussed the matter on the occasion of the celebration of the thirtieth year of the founding of the Health Service.

Mr. Mellish: Will the Leader of the House inform the Prime Minister—if he is not already aware of the fact—that there is grave concern among sections of civil servants who are being compulsorily transferred from London for reasons that were valid many years ago but are not valid today? The problem is becoming acute. Will the whole matter be looked at again, and will those decent people be given an assurance that they will not be forced out of a London which they do not want to leave?

Mr. Foot: I understand my right hon. Friend's interest in the matter. I also understand that he wishes to defend the rights of those who wish to stay in London. On the other hand, I believe that the Government were right, in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, to embark upon a programme of dispersal. Although it is not easy to carry through that programme, I believe that the Government are correct to stick to their principles and intentions.

Mr. Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that concern has been expressed in the House about the statement in a Labour Party broadcast recently which said that the party wished to control all the means of production? Has

he brought that to the attention of the Prime Minister, in case the Prime Minister did not hear the broadcast? Is it the Prime Minister's policy that there should be further widespread nationalisation?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with the phrases that have figured in the constitution of the Labour Party since 1918. I suggest that if he studies the whole history of the matter he will see how much of the programme we have carried out and how much we intend to carry out during our next period in office. All those matters will be fully stated when we present a manifesto to the nation.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that the National Health Service would have been aborted before its introduction if it had been left to hon. Members who sat on the Conservative Benches at the time? Will he make clear that in any civilised society, whether people are rich or poor, there should be no inequality in the health services available to them, and that we shall carry out the principles which Nye Bevan incorporated when he introduced the Bill?

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. On the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill, the Conservative Opposition of the day voted against it, and they did so again on Third Reading. They even carried the matter further. A few months before the introduction of the Service on 5th July 1948, they attempted a further measure to try to prevent it from coming into operation. They are trying to make up for that now. We believe that there are still great improvements to be made in the Health Service, and we propose to carry them out in the next 30 years.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th July.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Adley: Has the Lord President noticed the extraordinary coincidence that


the Secretary of State for Transport last night announced the go-ahead for the construction of the Stockbridge bypass, which happens to be in the Penistone constituency, where there is to be a by-election. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while political bribery is bad enough, when it is done with the taxpayers' money it becomes political chicanery? Is he aware that we find a precedent here in the occasion when his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), as Minister of Transport, did the same thing during the Hull by-election by promising that the Humber bridge would be built?

Mr. Foot: I confess that I had not heard of the announcement about Stockbridge, but I am happy to hear of it now, even from the hon. Gentleman's lips. I am sure that, just as we won the by-election in Hull with a thumping majority, we shall do the same in Penistone.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10TH JULY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards debate on the 1979 preliminary draft Community budget, when EEC documents R/1577, R/1104 and R/519 of 1978 will be relevant.
Proceedings on the Adoption (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and on the Interpretation Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.
TUESDAY 11TH JULY, WEDNESDAY 12TH JULY, AND THURSDAY 13TH JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 14TH JULY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 17TH JULY—Further consideration of Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Whitelaw: First, can the right hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking that the Government will provide an opportunity for a debate on Rhodesia before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Secondly, as alleged details of the Edmund-Davies report on police pay have already appeared in the press, and as the Home Secretary was waving the report about in the House of Commons this afternoon, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when a statement will be made on that report? In any case, will he give us an assurance that there will be an opportunity before the House rises to debate the regulations that will have to be laid to increase police pay on 1st September?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman asks for two considerable debates. I cannot promise him the time on the basis for which he has asked, but I shall certainly take into account his representations on those subjects.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with the police pay report fully only a few minutes ago, indicating that the Government would state their view when the report was published, which should be very soon.
I cannot promise a further debate on Rhodesia necessarily before we depart for the Summer Recess, but I shall take into account the Opposition's representations. There is a considerable amount of essential business which the House must get through before we depart for the recess, and there are always other opportunities for hon. Members in different parts of the House to select particular subjects if they wish.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call another hon. Member, I remind the House that the main business of the day will be covered by a timetable motion. I shall not, therefore, be able to allow questions on next week's business to run too long.

Mr. John Ellis: What role has my right hon. Friend played in the current dispute about the low pay of civil servants? It affects many servants of the House, where we have a direct responsibility. There is likely to be a renewal of industrial action which may affect the House


by as early as Thursday next week. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we have a direct responsibility here, though the Civil Service Ministers are involved, in so far as such civil servants are employed in this House? May I ask him to use his good offices—for I understand that negotiations have broken down—to get the parties round the table again? The conditions of those lower-paid civil servants who are our own workers are abysmal, and we ought to do something about the matter.

Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend that we in this House and those with special responsibility have an obligation to try to ensure that proper conditions are provided for people who work for us in the House. I do not accept what he says about the likelihood of our discussions breaking down. I think that in the discussions that I had yesterday with those concerned we made good, substantial further progress, and I believe that the way in which we are getting the discussions going is the best way for us to proceed.
I am sure that those to whom I was talking understand our good faith in the matter, and I think that we are making real progress along those lines. A further meeting will be taking place next week, as they are fully aware, and the date of that meeting was fixed in accordance with their desires as well as ours.

Mr. Powell: In view of the ingruence of a General Election and the desirability that the electorate should be forewarned against misleading statements and fraudulent claims on the subject of the New Commonwealth ethnic population, is not the right way to deal with this matter to have a full debate in the House before it rises, in accordance with the wishes which the right hon. Gentleman has already expressed?

Mr. Foot: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter before, although not with quite the gracious word with which he introduced his comment today. I shall take his representations into account. However, I must say to him, as I have said to others, that the House must appreciate that we have not a great number of days left. Therefore, there must be some selection of subjects by those in other parts of the House who

are able to choose subjects for debate when they wish.

Mr. Jay: As we have not many days left, when will my right hon. Friend introduce his long-promised proposals for this Session for better parliamentary control of EEC legislation?

Mr. Foot: I understand what my right hon. Friend has said to me on that subject on many previous occasions, and I fully recall our debate on the subject. I fully understand that I am committed to put a motion on the matter before the House. I cannot give him the exact date, but I hope that I shall be able to give some indication in my statement next week.

Mr. du Cann: Is the Leader of the House aware that a week ago today the Fourth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts was published, providing for the assimilation of cash limits with the Estimates on the basis of Treasury recommendations? Is he further aware that it is understood that the Expenditure Committee will be reporting on these matters shortly, just as soon the printing of its report can be arranged?
In view of the importance of these matters—the new system is scheduled to begin in the next financial year—and its implications, not least for the restoration of the power of this House over the Executive by taking proper control of Government expenditure, would not the right lion. Gentleman agree—I know his sympathy for the point in general—that it might be convenient to have a debate on this subject before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give that promise to the right hon. Gentleman, although I shall take into account his representations, along with the others that come from other hon. Members about how we are to dispose of our time between now and the date when we depart. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would also acknowledge that the Government have a pretty good record in the provision of time for discussing the reports of Select Committees and his own Committee. I believe that we have to take that into account when we are deciding whether we can give further time before we depart for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Faulds: Will not my right hon. Friend accept the urgency of debating the deteriorating situation in Southern Rhodesia? As I foretold many months ago in the House, the internal settlement is in the process of breaking down. Would not such a debate give us a chance of educating the Opposition on the realities of the situation in Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Foot: I have sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I am not saying that a debate on the subject might not be of assistance. However, we had a debate on it not so long ago. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary stated the Government's views very carefully then, and we are standing by those principles. We are doing everything that we can to try to ensure that there shall be a better outcome in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Has the Lord President noticed Early-Day Motion No. 509, standing in the names of my colleagues of Plaid Cymru and myself, which draws attention to the widespread movement through Europe towards decentralism and autonomy for the Stateless nation and the historic regions of Europe, which are the basis of the diversity of European civilisation? Does he not think that so important a subject, about which this House knows so little, would be a good subject for debate in the House?

[That this House commends the declaration made at Bordeaux in February 1978 by representatives of the regions of the 20 democratic countries of the Council of Europe that the region is a community characterised by a historical, cultural, geographical or economic homogeneity, or a combination of all of these, that the regions of Europe are an irreplaceable and incomparable asset of European civilisation, and that they are the guarantors of that diversity which is the pride of the European heritage; notes the statement of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government held in Lisbon in October 1977 that a broad decentralising tendency in Europe consists both in a strengthening of local units and in the development of the regional entity and that "The development of regional awareness and the reawakening of regional communities are no doubt the features of the regional phenomenon, which typifies the development of

political structures in Europe over the past 10 years"; approves the emphasis of the Galway Declaration of the First Convention of the authorities of European Peripheral Regions that there can be no real European community in a system in which the rich regions become richer and the poor regions poorer, and that the regional autonomy which is essential implies election by universal suffrage of a deliberative regional assembly and the existence of a regional executive which is responsible to it, and that the regions must be regarded as political partners of the States; notes that the European Ministers of Regional Planning meeting in Bonn in 1970 had already emphasised that, "European integration may, if unaccompanied by a common conception of regional planning and development policies, aggravate geographical differences still further" and that autonomous regional political institutions constituted a desirable intermediary between the municipalities and the State in which the administration became more human and personal and lent itself better to control by the citizens and their elected representatives; notes that the 1978 Bordeaux Declaration calls for a policy of regional planning on the continental level based on democratic participation of all the regions in order to avoid the continuing process of colonisation of peripheral regions; approves its statement that policy sights must be fixed not solely on the economic aspect of development but also on the cultural and social aspects, and its affirmation that all regions in the Council of member States should enjoy "independence in cultural matters" since the region is the most appropriate framework for preserving and enhancing the regional and cultural heritage and its traditions, and that the promotion of regional cultures is an indispensable element in the construction of a Europe which respects its cultural and linguistic diversity; approves the statement that this regionalism means the mobilisation of a wider range of human and political resources and the achievement of solutions which are not imposed from the centre but negotiated on the basis of equality, and that regionalisation must not be at the expense of local authorities but implies the transfer downwards to a level closer to the governed of powers which have hitherto been exercised at the top; and finally asserts that Wales is more than


a region, that she is an ancient nation in which all the rights and duties of nationhood inhere.]

Mr. Foot: I have certainly read the Early-Day Motion tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. It is quite a lengthy motion. I took it away for the weekend, and I commend it to the House on that basis. I cannot promise that we shall debate it, important though the subject is, although I dare say that in our discussions on the Wales Bill—which we intend to conclude before we depart for the recess—many of these matters can be raised. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity on that occasion.

Mr. Stoddart: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Early-Day Motion No. 500 concerned with New Zealand mutton and lamb? Is he aware that it has been signed by hon. Members in all parts of the House and illustrates the widespread concern about this matter, which will affect not only our housewives but our New Zealand kith and kin? May we have an assurance that we shall have an early debate on the subject? In any event, can he assure me that nothing will be agreed by the Council of Ministers until this House has thoroughly discussed the matter?
[That this House urges the Government to reject any proposal which would adversely affect imports of mutton and lamb from New Zealand and jeopardise the Fatstock Guarantee (Deficiency Payments) Scheme, which has served British lamb producers well over the last 20 years.]

Mr. Foot: If it proves necessary to introduce a Community organisation for mutton and lamb, Her Majesty's Government will not accept one which does not ensure proper and fair returns for our producers. Nor will the Government accept such a proposal if it does not provide for continuing imports of New Zealand lamb with no new restrictions. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made this view clear to the country on previous occasions. Again, I am not sure whether we can have a debate on the matter, but I believe that in the questions that have been put to my right hon. Friend he has made his view perfectly clear.

Mr. Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman look most seriously at Early-Day Motion No. 449 concerning homoeopathic medicine?
Is he aware that it has been signed by over one-third of hon. Members in all parts of the House who are free to sign Early-Day Motions? Does he realise that this issue is a matter of extreme concern, and a debate even very late at night would be better than no debate at all?

[That this House, and in particular those honourable Members who themselves have benefited from homoeopathic medicine, being aware of its present great value and its long history of success in the therapeutic treatment of the sick, has read with dismay that the deans of the post-graduate medical faculties have accepted the view of the Council for Postgraduate Medical Education that "training in homoeopathy is not of sufficient relevance to modern medical practice to warrant financial support for courses for general practitioners", Official Report, 26th April 1978, column 602; draws the attention of the Government to the fact that during the past two years over 35,000 members of the general public from all parts of the United Kingdom who are unable to receive homoeopathic treatment have inquired from the British Homoeopathic Association and the Faculty of Homoeopathy where such treatment may he obtained within the National Health Service; insists that the Government has a responsibility to ensure that medical education provides adequately for all recognised forms of medicine and not solely for that practised by the majority of doctors and must not therefore shelter behind pronouncements from the Council for Postgraduate Medical Education; and therefore urges the Government to take urgent steps to provide sufficient grants for general practitioners to take post-graduate courses in homoeopathy, in order to ensure that there is a sufficient number of doctors fully qualified in this branch of medicine to provide homoeopathic treatment under the National Health Service for all those patients who so desire it.]

Mr. Foot: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with those who signed the motion. I think that it is legitimate to remind the House that there are other opportunities for hon.


Members to select times for debate. I think that must be taken into account, especially as we approach the Summer Recess.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call three hon. Members from each side of the House.

Mr. Loyden: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware of the statement made by the Plessey Company regarding the redundancies in Edge Lane? Will he ask the Prime Minister to reactivate the recommendations in the report of the NEB on the telecommunications industry since my right hon. Friend will be aware that this further burden of unemployment on Merseyside is completely unacceptable?

Mr. Foot: I fully appreciate that the unemployment on the Merseyside is severe. I shall discuss that latest report with my right hon. Friend during the beginning of next week after he returns from the Bremen meeting.

Mr. Crouch: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman how glad I am that he has at last arranged for Oliver Cromwell to be seen outside the House? Does this indicate a final act of penitence by the Lord President before he leaves office in a few months' time?

Mr. Foot: It has nothing to do with an act of penitence. I was not responsible for boxing up Oliver Cromwell. I do not see that I should take any responsibility for this.
I am in favour of the proper Oliver Cromwell ceremony taking place on 3rd September this year, as on previous years. I hope we shall celebrate not only Oliver Cromwell but all his great associates— the Levellers, the Diggers, and all those who are in his great assembled company. I hope that it will be the biggest ceremony that we have ever had on 3rd September.

Mr. Madden: If substantial pay increases can be justified for top civil servants on grounds of equity and good administration, do not the same grounds present an overwhelming case for justice being given to low-paid civil servants? Will the Lord President accept that the talks between the appropriate trade

unions and the Civil Service Department have broken down, and will he arrange for a statement to be made so that we can deploy arguments calling attention to the plight of low-paid industrial civil servants?

Mr. Foot: Another of my hon. Friends raised that subject earlier. I understand that there has been a breakdown in the negotiations, and we must certainly look at them to see what further can be done. There is no doubt that there is very strong feeling among industrial civil servants, and we have to take that into account too.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the somewhat unsatisfactory replies he gave earlier this afternoon to the effect that time for such important subjects as Southern Africa, immigration and, for that matter, the safety of my constituents on Canvey Island, cannot be found because the Session is coming to an end? Is it not all the more important, as we are moving into a General Election atmosphere, to extend the Session so that these important matters may be properly discussed here in Parliament?

Mr. Foot: There is no decision yet as to when the House of Commons will rise for the recess. When we come to that point, the House will have the chance of deciding the matter. Even in the House of Commons, where we do not have a thumping majority, we have managed to carry that motion on previous occasions. I dare say that we may on this occasion, too, such are our persuasive powers. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly legitimate to indicate to the House that in the next three weeks there will be opportunities for private Members to select what may be debated.

Mr. Dalyell: Would not even Oliver Cromwell have revealed by now which Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill he was prepared to accept? In particular, has the Lord President come to any decision on the matter of the devolution of betting and gaming, which, according to Lord Allen, the chairman of the Gaming Board, is highly dangerous?

Mr. Foot: On the second matter—the clause carried in the other place—the Government will reveal their attitude when we come to that debate. On the


general matter of the Government indicating their attitude on each amendment, if we were to do that in the way my hon. Friend suggests, whatever Oliver Cromwell may have thought about it, we should be departing from the normal precedent in these matters. However, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) when he put a question to me last week on the subject, we should certainly indicate to the House that we are prepared to accept a considerable number of amendments. I think that we have already indicated that, and I am sure that it will become more apparent as we proceed with the debate this afternoon. The House will be able to see for itself that we are approaching the whole matter in the reasonable spirit that I described in response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Biffen: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on successive Business Question days recently he has been asked to state the Government's policy on dividend control? Are we now to understand from his exchange earlier this afternoon with my right hon Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) that this is a matter which will be discussed with the CBI? If that is so, would it not be a courtesy to inform the House formally?

Mr. Foot: The matter would have to be decided by the House one way or another: there is no question of its being decided by the CBI. All I said in response to the question from the right hon. Gentleman was that, since discussions are likely to take place between the Government and the CBI and the Government and the TUC over the coming weeks, this was obviously a topic that might arise in those discussions. That does not seem to me to be any denigration of Parliament's rights.

Later—

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have waited until this moment—because I thought it would be most convenient for the House—to raise a small point, but one of some relevance. It has always been the practice, during questions after the statement on next week's business by the Leader of the House, for hon. Members to be able to

question the Leader of the House about next week's business. On a number of occasions, however, not all those hon. Members wishing to question the Leader of the House have been able to catch your eye. May I ask you to consider reminding the House that it has always been the practice that an hon. Member should ask only one question of the Leader of the House and not a multitude of questions? If hon. Members limited themselves to the practice of putting only one question, we might find that more hon. Members were able to catch your eye during that period.

Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That has been one of the best speeches I have heard today.

RAILWAYS (SLEEPING-CAR FIRE)

3.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): At about 02.50 this morning the 21.30 sleeping-car express from Penzance to Paddington was brought to a halt approaching Taunton with the leading coaches on fire. I greatly regret that, despite rescue attempts, 11 passengers lost their lives and a further 20 passengers were injured, of whom 15 have been detained in hospital.
I have ordered a full inquiry into the accident, which will be held in public as soon as possible by an inspecting officer of railways. In the circumstances it would be clearly wrong for me to speculate on the cause of the fire.
British Railways have an excellent safety record. This is the first accident involving the death of a passenger since 1975 and the worst in terms of fatal casualties for over 10 years. This makes the tragedy doubly distressing. I am sure that the House would wish to express its deepest sympathy with the families and friends of all those who have been killed and its concern for the speedy recovery of the injured.

Mr. du Cann: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be much appreciated? Having made my own inquiries in my constituency from an early hour today, may I associate myself unreservedly with everything that he has


said, as I am sure the whole House would unhesitatingly like to be associated with his remarks of sympathy to those involved?
In particular, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the combined emergency services acted with remarkable promptitude and the very greatest efficiency? I cannot be the only Member of Parliament to reflect upon how fortunate we are in the United Kingdom that constantly on duty are bands of people ready to go to the aid of their fellow citizens and, on occasion, entirely careless of their own safety. Acts of gallantry were performed in the rescue operations this morning, as the Secretary of State will know. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House and the whole nation is proud of the outstanding safety record of British Rail? We are especially proud of that safety record in the West Country, where safety is a tradition.
The right hon. Gentleman used the words "as soon as possible" about the inquiry. Of course he is right. Speculation as to the causes of this dreadful accident should be eschewed by everyone. On the other hand, the public require reassurance, and the need for that is urgent. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will arrange that the inquiry will be completed at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous and well-justified remarks, including his tribute to the safety record of British Rail. I should like this inquiry to be held as soon as possible. As the House knows, the procedure is that British Rail will conduct an internal inquiry solely to obtain the necessary evidence, and the public inquiry begins usually after about 10 or 14 days. But I am sure that we want it to start as soon as possible and conclude its hearings swiftly.

Mr. Heffer: Did my right hon. Friend hear the "Today" programme this morning in which one of the survivors said that it was impossible to get out because of the new type of double windows that could not be wound down? If this is so, surely this should be looked at quickly, because people must be able to get out in such circumstances.

Mr. Rodgers: I heard that programme and I have heard subsequent comment relating to the problem not only of the windows but of the doors. But it would be quite inappropriate for me to form a view. These are precisely the matters which the inquiry will look into.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the Secretary of State aware that we should all like to be associated with his expression of sympathy to the families and friends of those who have been killed and, indeed, with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has said? We, too, welcome the inquiry and the Secretary of State's assurance that the results will be published as soon as possible.
I have two short points that I should like to put to the Secretary of State. First, will he accept that, like him, we see the general safety record of British Rail as extremely good and believe that that should be clearly recognised? Secondly, will he accept that there is a need to meet any public anxiety on the position here? Can he say what is the general practice on keeping the door exits of carriages unlocked to enable passengers to get out in case of fire? Will he examine whether there are smoke detection precautions which are currently taken? The House would be grateful for guidance on those two last points.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment, and I fully understand why he asks. But these matters are complicated. Even today, from what I have heard, there has been some conflict of evidence in public comment, and rather than say anything which might, in any way, mislead the House or prejudice the inquiry, I shall leave it as it now stands.

Mr. Penhaligon: It would appear that several of my constituents were killed in this accident, and as one of the few people in Britain to use this train virtually every week, I can assure the Secretary of State that the doors are locked between the carriages, that every door out of the train is locked other than where the attendant sits, and that the lower part of the windows which is supposed to open rarely does so. Indeed, most people are not even aware that it might open. I appreciate the Secretary of State's state-


ment and thank him for it. But could not some assurance be given that some of these practices will be altered immediately and that we need not wait for an inquiry to report?

Mr. Rodgers: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), because of what seems to me some conflict of view, I do not wish to comment on the details of present practices. But the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is very important because this train will continue to be used up to and during the period of the inquiry, and I shall take steps accordingly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising to be called.

Mr. Peter Mills: I associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said about sympathy towards the relatives. I am deeply disturbed by the fact that the western region has most of the secondhand engines and carriages from other regions. In the inquiry, will he look very carefully into the age of the coaches that were used and into the western region's practice—of some years' standing—of using cast-off carriages and engines from other regions?

Mr. Rodgers: I should perhaps point out that I shall not conduct the inquiry myself. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, such inquiries are conducted under well-established practices, and it is not for me to look into these questions. But I am sure that the inspecting officer will concern himself with questions such as those the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Nott: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who made a valuable point. I am sure that he and the Minister will agree that, ultimately, there is no way in which human error can be excluded, but the points raised by the hon. Member for Truro should be considered straight away.
The sleeper services to the far west are now bearing an enormous burden in that the sleeper train itself is twice, or sometimes more than twice, the length of most of the railway stations on the route.

This is an innovation of British Rail. There used to be two such sleeper trains; now there is only one. Could the Minister require the inquiry to look into the question of the length of the trains and the problems that arise from that? I think this point is relevant.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that, strictly speaking, it is for me to require the inquiry to look into any particular point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be noticed. As it is to be a public inquiry, I think that all these matters should be fully explored.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Secretary of State read the report by Colonel Rich, the Board of Trade inspector of railway accidents, in 1867–111 years ago—and ask the chairman of British Rail to do so? Colonel Rich condemned the practice of locking the doors at the ends of sleepers because it could lead to the deaths of passengers within in a fire. That was after the Irish Mail crash at Abergele on 20th August 1867. Should not we have learned by now?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not know yet what it is that we ought to have learned, because we do not know the cause of the accident. It would therefore be presumptuous on my part even to endorse the sentiment behind what the hon. Gentleman says. But of course we must learn by experience, and I am sure that the present inspector is fully aware of the long history of inquiries into accidents of this and other kinds.

Mr. Mudd: While in no way wishing to dissociate myself from the points made by my hon. Friend, I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the fact that the locking of doors in these sleepers is a safety provision. It enables the sleeping car attendant to keep constant surveillance over passengers joining and leaving the train through one door rather than a variety of doors. It also reduces the opportunity for passengers unwittingly to fall on the lines during the night without anybody seeing them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take on board the fact that there is an important safety aspect to the locking of doors.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman confirms me in my wisdom. I should not commit myself to any positive view about any aspect of this matter at this stage.

Mr. Fry: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that although he cannot, of course, prejudge anything about the causes of this accident, if, in the immediate future, it is found by British Rail that there are constructive measures that can be taken—such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—not only should these be taken but there should be a statement? We are at the beginning of the holiday season. Many people will be using sleepers and they will want some reassurance over the next few weeks.

Mr. Rodgers: I take that point. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Truro, it is a real one and, irrespective of the cause of this accident, if there are anxieties which can be relieved or practices which could be changed simply to relieve anxieties without adverse effects, I very much hope that British Rail will take the necessary steps.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that quite a number of us who have spent a lifetime working in the railway service would prefer that the experts hold their inquiry and that the results of that inquiry be made available to hon. Members? Then we can ask for the chance to put forward our views to the British Railways Board.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is right. The report will be published, of course, and it may well be that there are lessons in that report that the House will want to debate. It would be appropriate to do so then.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those present during the many debates on the Scotland Bill, I must confess that I am somewhat at sea about the procedure to be followed today and in the remaining two days under the new timetable measure.
I believe that it would be most helpful to the House, before we start our debates on this very complicated matter—I have some if not all of the remarks made in the other place, which we shall have to consider—to know a little beforehand what subjects are coming up. I realise of course, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot read out the list of all amendments to be called, but, if you are able at the start of the day to give an indication of some of the subjects to be discussed, it will enable us to do some homework before we take part in the debate.

Mr. Francis Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With your help, may I ask the Government whether they will indicate to the House which Lords amendments they intend to recommend should be accepted by the House and which should be rejected? Until last night I had thought—mistakenly, as I then discovered—that it would be necessary for the Government to put down a motion to disagree with the Lords on a particular amendment. Of course, that is not so.
Last night I received a letter from the Minister of State indicating what the Government intended to do, and I am grateful to him for helping me in that respect. Until then, I had expected that the House would have been in the same state of knowledge today, but that is not so. The House does not know what the Government's intentions are because there is nothing to show this on the Order Paper. I believe that it would be convenient if we had this knowledge.
Therefore, with your help, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether he can


say, first, why it was that on this occasion, unlike many previous occasions, the practice of putting such a motion on the Order Paper was not followed? Secondly, will he indicate to the House what his intentions are?

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The guillotine motion and the Government's behaviour in dealing with it are in accordance with what has been done on previous occasions, although, no doubt, there have been various approaches by Governments in different circumstances. I am willing to assist the House as much as I can in this matter so that we may have as orderly a debate as possible. The right hon. Gentleman indicated in the exchanges the other day that he had perhaps found a difficulty, and that was why I responded by writing to him as I did.
Perhaps the most convenient way to proceed would be that, when we come to each compartment of the debate, I should indicate at the beginning which amendments within that compartment the Government would recommend the House to accept.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Opposition Front Bench is told what amendments are to be accepted, why on a matter of this kind cannot Back Benchers on both sides be given equal information? I do not make any complaint about the Minister of State telling the Opposition Front Bench, because that is the courteous thing to do. I should have thought, however, that the same information could have been made available to Back Benchers.
Secondly—[Interruption.]—on the question of betting and gaming, I should like to return to the issue that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Lord President.[Interruption.] The issue of betting and gaming seems to be an especially complex subject. It would involve a great deal of work if the Government were not to accept the motion in the Lords that was put forward in the names of my noble Friend Lord Wigg and others. This is a very important matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order—

Mr. Dalyell: I cannot sit down as I should when you rise, Mr. Speaker,

because the Bench has been soiled by some of the offensive matter that has iust been thrown from the Public Gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will sit a little further along. I am asking, unusually, for one of the attendants to be allowed into the Chamber while we are sitting to clear up the mess on the Floor as well as on some of the Benches. I am all right here, but I was very anxious for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He was only just missed. Will the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) now bring his point of order to a conclusion?

Mr. Dalyell: My final point is that Lord Allen of Abbeydale made clear that in his considered view, as in the considered view of the previous chairman of the Gaming Board, Sir Stanley Raymond, it was highly dangerous to devolve betting and gaming. He was not actually a newcomer to the Gaming Board when he gave evidence to the Royal Commission. He had been permanent secretary at the Home Office, the Department responsible for betting and gaming, and can therefore be presumed to know a great deal about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that tt is in the interests of the House if I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes to enable the mess to be dealt with.

4.9 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

4.29 p.m.

On resuming

Mr. Speaker: I shall make a brief statement later in the day about the incident that caused me to suspend the sitting.
I call the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to conclude his point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: I was referring to the serious issue of the possibility of debating properly betting and gaming, in light of the fact that Lord Allen, chairman of the Gaming Board, has said that it is highly dangerous to devolve betting and gaming.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may we possibly have injury time for consideration of Lords amendments, on possibly a fourth


day of such consideration? That might be to the advantage of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The House has already taken its decision.

Mr. John Smith: One perhaps unforeseen side benefit of the suspension is that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) approached me to ask whether we could make available the letter which I sent to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) indicating the amendments which the Government were minded to accept and make them more widely available to the House. I have had it photocopied and copies are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Pym: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking that trouble. I am sure that that will be for the convenience of the House. There are, in fact, 36 amendments which the Government are intending to recommend the House to accept, and it is of some interest that all but four of them are amendments which were conceded by the Government in another place or amendments actually moved by the Government in another place in response to strong representations. I ask the Minister of State whether he could do the same next week so that the House might have the advantage of knowing what is intended for the remaining two days of the debate, which I understand will take place the week after next.

Mr. Smith: I shall certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Later—

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the leave of the House to make a very brief statement.
I have to inform the House that a man and a woman were taken into custody by the Serjeant at Arms in connection with the recent disturbance in the Gallery this afternoon. I take a serious view of this, and I have directed that they be given into the custody of the civil police.

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

THE SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:

the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments nos. 2, 4, 7 to 10, 15 to 17, 101 and 114.

Mr. Smith: As I think the House will be aware, this group of amendments provides for elections to the Scottish Assembly to be by the additional Member system of proportional representation. Since we have less time to debate this matter than we once thought, I am sure the House will not wish me to embark on a long discussion on the detail of the system, which has been explained to us on many occasions by its proponents.
I remind the House that it has debated and voted on a similar proposition in relation to the devolved Assemblies on three occasions. On each occasion, the House rejected a system of proportional representation. Nevertheless, the other place, by an equally clear majority, decided in favour of the additional Member system, so this House has the opportunity of considering the matter yet again. In the earlier debates to which I referred Ministers explained why the Government had not proposed a system of proportional representation.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A conversation is being conducted on the Government Benches and I cannot hear the Minister of State.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members will have heard that point of order.

Mr. Smith: As I was saying, in previous debates Minister explained why the Government had not proposed a system of proportional representation for the Asesmbly elections, and the House will not want me to set out those arguments again. The Government's view is clearly known and has been made clear in previous debates. In view of the shortness of the time available for the debate, I shall say no more on the merits of the matter.
However, I make clear to the House that there is a free vote on these amendments. The Government reached the view


that it was appropriate to allow a free vote on this occasion. I understand that the Conservative Party is allowing a free vote, and that may be the view taken by other political parties. For hon. Members on this side of the House, I confirm that there is a free vote, but the Government's recommendation is that the amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Pym: I appreciate the extreme brevity of the Minister of State, but, as he said, these amendments were carried in another place by a very large majority indeed. This House will return to the subject with renewed interest in the light of the surprisingly strong degree of support that these amendments received in another place.
The House knows that I have a great deal of sympathy with proportional representation and the ideas behind it. For Westminster it would be a drastic change, and I think we all know that the House would not agree to it by quite a wide margin. However, we are considering proportional representation in relation not to Westminster but, to an altogether new Assembly, the political circumstances surrounding which would be entirely different. Not only that, but the Asesmbly would also have an entirely different role. It does not follow, therefore, that what is thought to be inappropriate as an electoral system for Westminster is necessarily inappropriate for the proposed Assembly.
In Scotland, the political landscape is dominated not by two political parties but by three parties—fairly equal in size and enjoying broadly the same degree of support—plus a number of minor parties. In such circumstances, the most important claim of the advocates of proportional representation is that no one party can gain a majority of seats on a minority of votes.
Of course, under any system, a party which gains 50 per cent. of the votes will probably secure a majority of seats, but that degree of support is not often forthcoming. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) will stop his permanent muttering, to the irritation of everybody. He is not one of those hon. Members who have often attended debates on the Scotland Bill. I do not know whether it is something to do with an earlier incident that calls him to his place now.
In any election confined to Scotland, such an outcome would be extremely unlikely, to say the least. So the question is whether it is acceptable or wise to create a situation in the Assembly in which a relatively small proportion of the votes would be allowed to secure a majorty of seats for one party.
It seems to me that there is a risk that, through the operation of this process under the first-past-the-post system, one party might achieve a dominant position in the Assembly and maintain it for some years while not commanding anything like a commensurate degree of support in the country. In my opinion, such an outcome is undesirable and unnecessary, especially for an Assembly with the type of responsibilities that are laid down in the Bill. Compromises can, and should, be sought in devolved areas.
Nobody can tell whether any such domination by one party will occur, but the Lords amendment would obviate it. One argument used by the Solicitor-General for Scotland in another place was that the Bill is an experiment and it might be a mistake to add a further novelty to it—to pile one experiment upon another. Although there is already more than one experiment in the Bill, I think that there is some force in his argument.
However, the alternative also has to be considered. If we adhere to the firstpast-the-post system, the consequences must be accepted. One of those is that the party which gains the majority at seats may well claim that it is fully entitled to implement its programme. Two points emerge from that. The first was made by my noble Friend Lord Home of the Hirsel in another place when he expressed his anxiety and concern at the practice which has arisen whereby a Government elected on a minority vote have interpreted their majority in such a way as to entitle them to impose policies and undertake actions which clearly are not what the majority of people have voted for. That is the tyranny argument. so to speak—using a majority of seats from a minority of votes to implement a programme with which most of the electorate does not agree.
The second point is that the claim of any party to carry through its programme, by virtue of a majority of seats


obviously must apply to all parties. In this case, one of the parties wants to make a drastic change to the constitution of the United Kingdom. It would therefore be feasible under the first-past-the-post system for a minority of Scottish votes to yield a statistically possible result that would give the Scottish National Party a majority of seats. It would then regard itself as being entitled to set out towards its target of independence as best it might.
I am not suggesting that that party has indicated any intention that could be remotely described as UDI, but it would be entitled, at least by the letter of the law, to use that Assembly majority, if it obtained it, to try to take Scotland towards the party's coal of independence.

Mr. George Reid: Is it not much to the credit of the Scottish National Party that, even when the party was riding high in the polls, with 35 per cent. or 36 per cent. of votes, the SNP consistentl r supported electoral reform?

Mr. Pym: I take that point, but I think that what I have just said is accurate.

Mr. Dalyell: Was not Lord Home under a fundamental misunderstanding when he said:
I do not think, therefore, that they are the kind of Bills which ought to lead to great and serious clashes between parties".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 56.]
He draws the analogy between what he thinks an Assembly will be and the Scottish Grand Committee here. But we are talking about a Government in Edinburgh. Does not the noble Lord display a fundamental misunderstanding of the change as between the Scottish Grand Committee and a Scottish Assembly Government?

Mr. Pym: If I may say so, that was slightly wide of the point that I was making. My noble Friend said that it seemed to him that there would be three or four political parties in Scotland, more or less equally balanced, and a system of proportional representation would, in his view, give a fairer result.
The situation that I have been describing is a possible match to what is unfor

tunately now happening in Quebec, where we know that 40 per cent. of the votes has yielded the Parti Quebecois 70 per cent. of the seats. In Scotland, at the last election to this Parliament, the Labour Party polled 36 per cent. of the votes and obtained 58 per cent. of the Scottish seats—not so extreme an example as Quebec, but in that direction. If this group of amendments were accepted, that possibility could not exist.
In a previous debate on this subject, I stressed the importance of making a constitutional change of this kind, if it is to be made, on its own merits as an improvement in our constitution, and not for the purpose of affecting one party or as a device for worsting or effecting any particular point of view. I adhere to that still, but I point out that the amendment would have some consequences which, in the circumstances of Scotland, are desirable.
I have sustained over the months a strong criticism of the Government for their handling of devolution. They look as though they are in the process of securing a measure of success in obtaining the advantage they want for their own party, but at a price that I think will prove very high for the United Kingdom. I have argued consistently for the need for a broad measure of support for any constitutional change. I believe that the same consideration applies here.
All our recent debates on proportional representation have been in relation to the devolution Bills. I do not think that the election of a Scottish Assembly by PR would frustrate the Government's intention; nor do I see how it could in any way materially affect how the Government see the Bill operating. It is not in any sense a wrecking amendment. The Solicitor-General for Scotland said in another place that it would cause no delay whatever in its operation and implementation.
But the House has to vote yet again on a particular method of proportional voting. A particular group of amendments is before us. There is uncertainty about which method of proportional voting should be used, and about the details of it. There has been too little discussion about the matter, and no debate about it in the House so far.
What is more, when we have debated the issue, we have had before us a different scheme, at least in detail, on each occasion.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am absolutely fascinated by this, because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman and many of his right hon. Friends were opposed to the principle of proportional representation. Is he now in support of it? I am absolutely confused. I do not know where the Opposition stand on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman says "quite good", "quite bad" and so on. Where does he stand?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Pym: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to conclude my speech, I shall give him my answer. We on this side of the House have a free vote on the matter, as do Members on the Government side. Furthermore, we are discussing not the principle of proportional representation but a group of Lords amendments to a particular Bill. I am relating the argument to the effect that I think these amendments would have, if passed, upon the proposed Assembly and the Bill.
Therefore, I do not think that it is entirely fair of the hon. Gentleman to think that I should say what I feel about the broad, general question of proportional representation. In fact, I have just made the point that it has never been debated in this House. It has been debated only in relation to the Scotland and Wales Bill. I notice that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who has been prominent in these debates on each occasion, is strikingly absent on this occasion. However, I make no criticism.
Perhaps I may now be allowed to continue with my speech, because many hon. Members want to speak, and there are other measures to get on to.
On each occasion, the amendments put before this House have been different. On the Scotland and Wales Bill the proposal was for an Assembly for Scotland consisting of 71 directly elected Members, plus 29 added Members. On the Committee stage of this Bill, the proposal was for 100 directly elected Members—two from some larger constituencies and

one from the smaller constituencies—plus 50 added Members. This amendment is similar, but the numbers are altered to 101 directly elected Members plus 50 added Members. It is true that the same type of proportional voting is envisaged—namely, the additional Member system—but its advocates might have been wiser to sort out the details of their scheme first and then to stick to it. It would have been easier for the House.
A criticism of this particular form of voting is that it places rather heavy emphasis on party lists. I think that quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House feel a great deal of reluctance about engaging in a system which places greater stress upon party lists. However, I do not think that the method of election in any way goes to the heart of the Bill.
The Government pretended to think that proportional voting was right for elections to the European Assembly. They undertook to put a choice to the House, and they did so. They offered a choice between the first-past-the-post system and the regional list. The latter was so unsatisfactory and unacceptable that the House rejected it. Again, there were no prior discussions. There should have been, because in all probability the second set of elections to the European Assembly will take place under proportional voting. The point is that the Government thought that that system was the right voting method for that Assembly. Therefore, they cannot be opposed to proportional representation on principle.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, hon. Members on his side of the House have a free vote. So have we, and the House will decide. My own position is simple. Despite my reservations about the method, which I have expressed to the House, I do not intend to oppose it. I see no overriding disadvantage in it, and I do not think that it is an issue that is crucial to the Bill. In no way would the acceptance of this group of amendments frustrate either the implementation of the Bill or its operation. It is for the House to decide whether this thoroughly bad Bill will work less badly or more badly if this method is adopted, or whether perhaps it will not make a significant degree of difference.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am one of those Members who


cannot describe themselves as battle-scarred veterans of the Bill. I have said not a word about the Bill in the House, because I simply was not here to say it. Therefore, I have not been involved in debates on proportional representation.
Although I have given some thought to the matter, and have possibly acquired a certain knowledge of the various systems that have been proposed, I have never taken a definite or hard stand one way or the other. However, election to this House and the reality of a free vote concentrates the mind wonderfully on these matters. I shall have to vote tonight, and I intend—in some ways rather reluctantly—to vote against the additional Member system proposed in this group of amendments.
I say that not as someone who is instinctively, root and branch, hostile to the idea of electoral reform or, necessarily, to some form of proportional representation. I think that that would be the height of arrogance. Clearly, if we look at electoral statistics and recent returns we see a strong basic case for electoral reform of which every hon. Member is aware and which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym).
In Scotland at the last election my own party gained 36 per cent. of the vote and nigh on 60 per cent. of the seats, so clearly there is a case to answer. It would be extremely stupid not to accept that. We cannot afford just to say that we stay with tradition because it is traditional, or even, tempting though it is, that we stay with tradition because it suits us in the short term. After all, none of us knows what the long term will hold.
I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall explain only briefly why I shall be voting in the "No" Lobby tonight. First, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are not necessarily taking final decisions about proportional representation per se—however, wherever and whenever it is proposed. We have a specific additional member scheme represented by this batch of amendments, and it is on that specific scheme that the House is to pass judgment.
There are and must be worries about the fragmentation of party politics and

the encouragement of coalitions. I see the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) raising his eyes in horror, but I make that general point because it has particular application to the scheme embodied in the Lords amendments. I think that the best case against this scheme—it may have been referred to in previous debates, and it may be referred to again—was made in Lord Drumalbyn's speech, reported at column 51 of the Official Report of the first day's Committee proceedings in the other place.
What Lord Drumalbyn tried to do was to translate the October 1974 election returns in Scotland as he thought they would apply in his 150-seat or so Scottish Assembly. He concluded—I have no reason to doubt his arithmetic—that if we had had his additional Member seat Assembly in October 1974 we should have had 58 Labour Members, 36 Tory Members, 45 SNP Members and 11 Liberal Members. The outstanding feature of that particular mix is that the Lib-Lab pact would not have worked. The Labour and Liberal totals combined would not command a majority. For a workable majority, there would have to be an SNP-Labour alliance, a Tory-Labour alliance or a Tory-SNP alliance. Somehow we should have to get two of the big three running in harness to form an Administration.
In the reality of politics—we are talking about a system which we are asked to put into real practice in the immediate future—we would be producing an Assembly that would be totally ungovernable and unworkable. That weighs heavily with me and should, I think, weigh heavily with the House when it considers this scheme. It would be particularly damaging because in the normal state of affairs we are looking at a fixed-term Assembly.
I am aware that there is an emergency fallback clause allowing an early election if two-thirds of the Assembly will it. But we are working within the ambit of a fixed-term Assembly, and we should be constructing electoral systems for fixed terms. It seems, to me at least, that the recipe which their Lordships have produced would be thoroughly counter-productive and alarming.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman believes that in his scenario the Assembly


would be unworkable and ungovernable, what will he do if under our present electoral system the distribution of seats in the Assembly produces exactly the same result?

Mr. Dewar: That would be unfortunate. We should have to live with it. The hon. Gentleman should not laugh. Whatever system is constructed, there is a possibility of that unfortunate situation emerging. I am saying that the possibility is converted into a probability if we go for the system that their Lordships are recommending to the House.
There is an enormous quantitative difference between a possibility and a probability, and I am sure it is one that the hon. Member appreciates. I do not wish to sound too complacent, but I believe that there are virtues in the certainties of the present system and I do not accept the Royal Commission's argument, much stressed in the other place, that certainty was less important in a subordinate legislature.
We shall be dealing in the Scottish Assembly with the crunch issues of domestic Scottish politics—education and housing—issues that worry the Scottish electorate. It is not fair to say that in some way we need not worry about coalitions because it will be a nice cosy consensus discussion with no real party fighting. The real Scottish party infighting will take place in the Assembly, and in those circumstances the proposal for an additional Member system is unfortunate.
I wish now to deal briefly with another major consideration. It has been rehearsed again and again, but I must state my position. I refer to the "thin end of the wedge" argument. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that we are looking at an Assembly alone and it is therefore not fair to say that, if there is PR in the Assembly, we must also have it at Westminster. That is a plausible position, but it is a difficult one to hold over a period. One can hold the line now, but in three or four years it will be more difficult to hold.
Europe can be distinguished—even Stormont could be distinguished in years gone by—but if on the mainland of Great Britain, in a legislature subordinate to the House of Commons, PR is introduced, one will be open to the argument that if

it is good for Scotland it is good for Britain. It would be difficult to defeat that line of reasoning. I do not go for that argument, although it is one beloved of many hon. Members who argue for PR. I do not accept that there is an enormous difference between Scottish politics and English politics because in England there is a two-party system and in Scotland a three-party system.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a pragmatic and reasonable man, will accept that if it was demonstrated that it was good for Scotland it might well be good for Britain, too. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Dewar: That would be so if one accepted that it would be good for Scotland. My argument, as the hon. Member will have gathered, is that as a matter of balance it would not be good for Scotland. The reasons why many people wish to see it introduced into Scotland seem basically unsound, and I might carry the hon. Member on that. But Conservatives, in particular, say that we must not have PR in case we have a Parti Québecois situation where 70 per cent. of the seats are won by 40 per cent. of the votes.
I am totally opposed to introducing a system of electoral reform where one of the main arguments in favour of which is fear of success of a particular party, however much I may personally oppose it. That is an extraordinarily dangerous piece of political sophistry and one that I would stand against. I believe that if we produce the right policies and promote them properly—the Scotland Bill is an important part of the Government's policy in Scotland—we shall beat the Scottish National Party at the polling booths under the present system. We should not try to construct a system to ensure that the nationalists cannot gain power by winning the argument in Scotland.
In the age of referendums—we have all made our contribution on constitutional issues—it is much less implausible to say that the first-past-the-post system might produce the endorsement of separatism by the back door. As happened in Quebec, if the SNP obtained a majority of seats in the House of Commons, it would


be the first to accept that it would have to take that issue on a referendum to the people of Scotland, as we did on Europe and as we are doing on devolution. That particular scare is one of the basic reasons why people vote for proportional representation in Scotland. Saying that we do not want it in England is much less impressive, given that we have established constitutional referendums over the past year or two.
That argument is also basically unfair to the Liberal Party. I do not accept the thesis that in England the Liberals will not be an impressive third party. The Liberal Party polled well in recent elections in England, and I charitably hope that the hon. Member for Inverness and his colleagues may poll well on some future occasions. If they poll more than 20 per cent. in elections, are we to say that we must now have PR in England as a matter of political expediency, in order to accommodate them? Perhaps hon. Members will say that we must have PR not to accommodate them but in order to stop them, because they may win too many seats on the first-past-the-post system? It is a false argument, and I believe that the balance weighs heavily against the Lords amendments.
5.0 p.m.
Many people who have sympathy for proportional representation as a principle will not like the additional Member system in this package. That has closed the door for me, apart from the general points that I have made. It is a compromise, as its promoters said, and it is an uneasy compromise which was commended only on the grounds that it was easy to introduce. That is a practical consideration, but, given its disadvantages it is a slight one.
Non-elected Members will be second class Assemblymen, almost inevitably. If I were one, I should feel to some extent second class. I should be answerable to no electorate, although I would have a vague regional connection. I should be answerable, I suppose, to the party caucus which had picked me and foisted me on the Assembly. That is giving a power to the party machine which, loyal though I am to my own party, I would greet with no enthusiasm and with much scepticism. It is not a good idea to walk down

these ways and I believe that many who support PR will shy away from this proposal.
There was a letter in The Times on 5th July from a number of noble Lords on this matter. They said that they felt that they had popular support behind their amendments, and they referred to various opinion polls which showed heavy public support for PR. I am a little suspicious, because many of the questions are asked almost in the form, "Are you in favour of a fairer voting system?" Most of us are, but when one knows what it consists of one sometimes discovers that it is unfair, so that is not a significant piece of evidence.
The noble Lords went on to say that in view of the popular support that they imagined they had they felt that they might properly urge that the will of the people should prevail. That may have been a veiled hint about what they would do if the amendments foundered in this House.
I do not think that those who said "Yes" in that referendum were voting for the additional Member system or for non-elected Assemblymen or for all the complicated systems of averaging which would result in their evolution and arrival in the Scottish Assembly. If the whole Bill were to be jeopardised or delayed because some people in another place showed signs of playing ping-pong or of obstructing progress, that would be said for the prestige and standing of the United Kingdom Parliament in Scotland.
It would be thoroughly counter-productive, not just for the Lords but for this House as well, because Westminster would be seen again as failing to deliver the goods after years of difficult gestation. I hope that we shall vote against the amendments, and I hope that that decision will be accepted. The case generally has not been proved for PR in the Scottish Assembly, and I am satisfied that this formula would be damaging and destructive.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpeim): May I remind hon. Members that the guillotine falls on this group of amendments and on three others at seven o'clock? In view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part, I would appeal for brevity.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not difficult to find grounds on which to fault the scheme which is proposed in the Lords amendments. I mention only three of them. The first is that one would set up an Assembly with two different sorts of members—members who represent a constituency and members who represent nobody or everybody. There would be a strong feeling in this House against an Assembly with two classes of member.
Secondly, it is a system which would give the maximum strength and influence to the parties—and not only to the parties but to the central mechanism of the parties, not to party feeling in the respective constituencies but to the organisations, which will necessarily be central, which would fix the party list.
Thirdly, it destroys what surely in a provincial, just as much as in a national, assembly is important—the nexus between the representative and those whom he represents, the direct responsibility of every member who votes to those who sent him to that place for the way in which he has voted, as well as for the consequences for those whom he represents.
However, in a brief speech I do not want to dwell upon these defects of this scheme, although I believe that many of them would be found in most schemes of proportional representation. I want to draw attention to one matter of principle which already featured in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), although it entered into his speech, as it were, backwards on.
The hon. Gentleman designated it the argument of the thin end of the wedge, the argument that, if this is good for a subordinate Assembly which we are creating, then, bless my soul, we might one day find that some people would say that it was good for us. I believe that that consideration applies much more forcibly and with much more moral effect the other way round.
This House, this—at any rate internally—sovereign House, is engaged, whether we think it wise or not, in creating a subordinate and local Assembly. If it chooses not to create that Assembly in its own image, then the most serious consequences follow, for the clay will say to the potter, "Why halt thou made

me thus?" Those for whom we set up this subordinate Assembly will say that the national convention enshrined in Parliament is the acceptance of the consequences—which might seem grotesque, but the general and almost unbroken acceptance of the consequences—of direct elections, of a directly elected Assembly.
Why and by what right can this Assembly decide that in some parts of the United Kingdom circumstances are so different that it will create a different system, that it will endeavour to promote the acceptance of consequences different from those which we accept in the House of Commons? Is it really right that we should examine a part of the Kingdom and say "It looks to us as though the party structure is different in that part of the Kingdom. It looks to us as though there are—presumably only at the moment, or is this for eternity?—three evenly-balanced parties. We might he mistaken, but we say that that is how it looks to us. Therefore, in creating another democratic assembly, we will base that assembly upon different principles from those on which we are sent here, which incidentally are the principles which entitle us to pass this legislation."?
We are indeed guilty of a self-contradiction if we say that a majority in an elected House which does not correspond to a majority amongst the electorate is unacceptable, for there are some of us who believe that there is not even in this House a true majority for this measure which has come back from the Lords. Nevertheless, there is no hon. Member, I believe, who, even if of that opinion, will not accept that the law is validly made thereby until it can be changed.
Yet that very validity with which we presume to pass and expect to have accepted this legislation we are going to repudiate when we create an Assembly for a part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman there touches, of course, on the core of this debate. That may be a presumption which we should be very wary of making. Do we in fact correctly presume that we have the representative power to pass this law and create this Assembly? There are other hon. Members who would doubt that presumption.

Mr. Powell: I was not aware that any hon. Member doubted our right by majority, and in the due forms, to come to our decisions and, with another place, and the assent of the Crown, to make unchallengeable law for this realm. If we are to re-examine that principle, we must first examine it here. If we do not have the moral basis, if such a system is not a satisfactory form of legislation, we must not presume to use that unsatisfactory form in order to invent and impose a different system for a part of the Kingdom. The retort must be "Physician heal thyself". If we need healing it is here that we must debate these principles. If we are an invalid Assembly, and that is where the argument runs, we must revalidate ourselves before we can presume to pick and choose between the different parts of the Kingdom.
Besides, once we are embarked upon this it is not only on grounds of the particular party arrangements and party balance in the part of the Kingdom that we shall find ourselves so legislating. One reason which was given by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was that the matters with which this Assembly will deal are matters where compromise is particularly important. I happen to think that there is a profound confusion in that word "compromise", a confusion between compromise, which is splitting the difference between 10 and two and arriving at six, and on the other hand the restraint by which we desire and seek, and even need, a degree of consent even from a minority.
So the necessity for consent is very different from the necessity of compromise. But on what ground do we say that the subjects of this new Assembly are different from those with which we deal and such as to require the consequences of an Assembly elected upon these new principles? What about local and regional government which have been handling, though not at a legislative level, most of these subjects? Has it been our view that those matters are not to be dealt with by assemblies elected on the same principle as this Assembly is elected? That has not been our view so far. But those are not the only grounds upon which, once we start picking and choosing, we shall start deciding that the system that validates us is not good

enough for validating an assembly in a part of the Kingdom.
We shall find other reasons. We shall find in parts of the United Kingdom an entrenched party majority. It will not only be the fact that the parties are evenly balanced that will be urged in argument. It will be urged that in County Durham there is a permanent Socialist majority, or that in Hampshire, or whatever they call the area now, there is probably a permanent Conservative majority. Therefore, someone will tell us that we have to have a system which will enable us to break up the monopoly of these massive majorities which are created by our system of first past the post.

Mr. Peter Emery: As is done in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member, with his quickness of apprehension, has taken the very words out of my mouth, the words with which I was to conclude. These are observations fit to be put before this Assembly by those coming from a Province on which, not for representation in this House but for other purposes, a different system from that which we regard as valid here has been imposed. It has been imposed sometimes on one ground that the sort of differences are not party differences. It has been imposed sometimes on another ground that there is a permanent party majority. But, at any rate, it has been the imposition of a different system, so that there is a rooted grievance amongst those whom we represent that the principle which the Kingdom as a whole accepts and which hitherto in all subordinate Assemblies has been accepted, of decision by majority vote in an Assembly elected by first past the post, British democracy as it has been hithero, was either too good or not good enough for Northern Ireland.
It will not only be a province such as Northern Ireland that will be the anomaly and which will be aggrieved if we once start upon this course. There will be other parts of the Kingdom where there will be differences and divisions, where aspects which one might have wished might gain the ascendency or might gain expression will be able to be detected.
5.15 p.m.
We are debating an even more serious matter than the composition of the


Scottish Assembly. We are debating the very foundation of our own authority in this House and of our own representative character. One hon. Member, I think in an interruption, spoke, rather to reject it, just now of accepting things because they have been customary. Whatever system of representation is invented, it will always have arbitrary elements. There will be no system which will be compelling simply by its sheer logical beauty.
The reason why this House and its decisions are accepted, even by those of us who hate those decisions, even by sections of the country which at any time might be a majority of the country which hate and resent those decisions, is the force of what Burke called prescription.—because it has come to be so, because within the whole system of acceptance of law in this country, the making of law and the reaching of decisions in this House by that method, this form of representation, is part of the conditions of the acceptance. Once you take one stone, and that a cornerstone, out of that fabric, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not have strengthened that acceptance. You will have begun to destroy it.

Mr. Dalyell: Not for the first time in our discussions, I should like to refer to what I believe to be, not only because of his influence, an important misunderstanding by Lord Home in the Lords debates. It is the idea that somehow one can equate what we are doing in creating the conditions for a decision-making Scottish Government with what happens upstairs in the Scottish Grand Committee when we know that final decisions are taken not upstairs but by a Government majority down here.
I must say to Lord Home that if he thinks that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will not have differences of policy which brook no compromise, he ought to reconsider and reflect on the matter. He said:
I do not believe that the majority of people in Scotland wish to be governed by any Party—I do not care which Party it is—elected on a minority vote.
None of us has any control over that. There will be Governments with minority votes. He continued:
It is long-winded almost beyond words, but you can count the occasions almost on

two hands in which there have been serious clashes of principle on these kinds of Bills. I do not think, therefore, that they are the kind of Bills which ought to lead to great and serious clashes between Parties.
There will be great and serious clashes at the High School if it is set up, and, therefore, I think that this is a basic and geological misunderstanding.
I want to cut my speech by echoing much of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in relation to this general problem.
There was an important clash in the Lords when Lord Boyd-Carpenter was interrupted by Lord Mackie of Benshie. Lord Boyd-Carpenter took the argument that if we adopted a system that was in any way different from that which has pertained throughout the British constitution in this House over many hundreds of years, and if it was thought to be different precisely with the object of excluding the Scottish National Party from power for all time, it would then be thought to be a considerable cheat.
Lord Mackie said:
Would the noble Lord permit me? I think it should be pointed out, to their great credit, that many members of the Scottish National Party are in favour of PR.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter replied:
I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord is right as of now, but I wonder whether ha will reflect with me a little further as to what their likely reaction would be if this Amendment were carried; if they found themselves in a position in which, under the first-past-the-post system, they would have had a majority but we have devised rules which will inhibit them from getting their majority—which under that system they would have got, and which is after all the system that we adopt for the whole of the rest of our arrangements at Westminster and in this Island. Of course, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that, for a reason which I find it very difficult to follow because I do not think it is in their own interests, some of the representatives of that Party have taken this view."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th April 1978; Vol. 390, c 56, 59–60.]
I say without rancour that it is natural and understandable that, if a system is adopted which is different from what we have here and if the SNP, rightly or wrongly, thinks that on the basis of this system it is permanently, semi-permanently or at any rate in the long distance excluded from power, it will be dissatisfied and, indeed, it will have ground for dissatisfaction, because that really will be seen as a fixing operation.
I want finally to raise with the House the question of the political realities of Scotland. I think we can say that under a PR system the Communists and the party of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) will get few votes. I may be wrong, but I am not convinced that the Liberals will get many votes. It seems very likely, however, that, if not after the first election at least after the second or third election, no Government can be formed other than by a coalition of two of three main parties.
What are the possibilities? The first possibility is that there is a Tory-Labour coalition. That would raise some eyebrows on both sides of Smith Square. They would think it a bit strange at Transport House if that happened. I do not know what Ron Hayward and the national executive of the Labour Party would have to say if they discovered that there was a proposal for a Tory-Labour coalition in the High School in Edinburgh, and those in the Conservative Central Office might not be much less surprised.
If one excludes that possibility, one is left with what? PR makes it all the more likely, and that is why I shall be in the Lobby with the Minister of State on this occasion.
The truth is that if there is a Tory-SNP coalition or a Labour-SNP coalition, it will be fundamentally different not only in degree. It will be absolutely geologically different from any kind of Lib-Lab pact as we know it. One of the parties to such a coalition has as its very raison ďetre the break-up of the British State and different fundamental constitutional arrangements.
Whatever is said about the Lib-Lab pact, there is agreement on this fundamental issue. It is not the break-up of the State. There may be differences of views. But when one party has as its object the termination of the constitutional arrangements of the State, it is fundamentally different.
I say this with considerable friendship to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He is right in saying that PR may make this probable, but he has also to admit that under the arrangement which he and I would like to see it is possible. No one

has yet been able to say—I have asked the Secretary of State endlessly at Question Time—what precisely happens if by some unfortunate chance there is not an overall permanent Labour majority in the High School in Edinburgh. What happens then? I am afraid that the problem which so haunts my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden remains with us, whether or not we have PR.
I see that you are becoming very restless, Mr. Speaker. We are under a guillotine. I leave it at that, with that question to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall be with them in the Division Lobby tonight, for what that is worth. But, some time, I hope that they will explain precisely what will happen if there is a coalition. The price that the SNP will ask is to say "We will go along with your economic policy. If it is Labour, we will go along with a Left-wing economic policy. If it is Tory, we will go along with a Right-wing economic policy. But we ask one thing in return. We must go further along the road to a separate State." That is the price of going into political bed with the SNP.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Before I make my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance on a matter of order?
It had been my intention to make some quotations from remarks made in the other place. However, I understand from advice given to me privately by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that this would be out of order in respect of any noble Lord other than a Government spokesman. I wonder whether you can guide me on that matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member went to a good source for his advice. The position is exactly as he says. Hon. Members cannot quote noble Lords other than those who are speaking on behalf of the Government in another place.

Mr. Johnston: I presume, however, that I shall be in order if I paraphrase their remarks.

Mr. Speaker: That is right—so long as it is polite.

Mr. Johnston: As has been said, we are discussing the desirability of a different and, I would argue—unlike the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—a better system of voting for the


Scottish Assembly. We are doing so on the basis of a Lords amendment, and it has not been emphasised adequately so far that it was passed by a most substantial majority of 155 to 64 votes. That voting followed an extremely thorough debate in which a number of leading politicians, many of whom had seen service in this House over many years but who at that time, being trapped in the trench warfare of the two-party system, had not then expresesd any support for proportional representation, spoke eloquently and logically of their conversion to an acceptance of it. It is fascinating to see some of the names on the Division list of 4th April, which was when this vote took place.
The Lord Kilbrandon appears there. He was chairman of the Constitutional Commission, much quoted by the Minister of State when it suits him to support some matter in the Bill. Then there is the Lord Hailsham, a well-known Law Officer of the Conservative Party, the Lord Home of the Hirsel, the Lord Strathclyde, the Lord Wilson of Langside, the former Solicitor-General of the Labour Party, the Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the former chairman of the Labour Party, the Lord Can, the Lord Boothby, the Lord Campbell of Croy, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lady Gaitskell and many others.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) makes a great deal of the fact that what is important in this House is not parties but personalities and individuals. Very well. I quote personalities and individuals with experience, knowledge and political history in this House, and I feel that their combined influence has some relevance.

Mr. Tim Renton: Would the hon. Member care to add to this interesting part of his speech the thought that, even if no Conservative peers had voted in favour of proportional representation in the House of Lords, there would still have been a majority of eight in favour of the amendment to introduce proportional representation?

Mr. Johnston: I imagine that that is an inert piece of information which I am sure will be of great interest to those who compile the "Guinness Book of Records" but is hardly of any political significance. The importance of the Con

servative peers being in the Division Lobby was not that they made up the total but that they were there at all. That was very significant.
5.30 p.m.
In deference to the guidance given by Mr. Speaker, I want to paraphrase briefly a part of Lord Kilbrandon's central theme in moving the amendment in another place. This encapsulates part of the basic argument made in the Lords in favour of the amendment. He compared the general election of 1959 with that of October 1974. In 1959 we had a notable Conservative victory—it was their best performance since the war, if not this century. At that time the Conservative Party nationally won 49·4 per cent. of the votes and got 58 per cent. of the seats. In Scotland it obtained 47 per cent. of the votes but received only 44 per cent. of the seats.
On the other hand, the Labour Party got the same percentage of votes in Scotland—47 per cent.—but obtained 53 pet cent. of seats. Therefore, even in a year when the Conservative Party did extremely well in British terms, it was not on the same level in terms of representation in Scotland.
But, as Lord Kilbrandon pointed out, the situation changed in October 1974. Although the Labour percentage of votes on that occasion was down considerably on that of 1959—from 47 per cent. to 36 per cent.—its representation in terms of seats increased from 53 per cent. to 58 per cent. Therefore, there was no relationship between the two facts.
The Conservatives, the Liberals and the Scottish National Party received correspondingly unproportional representation, The most notable figure was for the SNP, which received 30·5 per cent. of votes compared with 36 per cent. for Labour but obtained only 15·5 per cent. of the seats compared with 58 per cent. for Labour.
The point that Lord Kilbrandon made with force and clarity was that for some time the situation in Scotland had been considerably different in its essential make-up from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. At a time of constitutional change, which inevitably produces emotional excitement, it was clear that whatever the composition of the new Assembly, with the first-past-the-post


system it could not have a majority party elected on the basis of the majority of votes cast. This view was echoed by Lord Home in his remarks and by other peers such as Lord Blake. They all said what most of us have said at some time—that in a situation in which the break-up of the electorate is roughly 30:30:30:10, one cannot expect that the party elected will necessarily be elected on the majority of the votes.
The Government's spokesman. Lord McCluskey, conducted himself throughout the debates on the Bill in a wholly admirable way, but in this particular debate his answer can only be described as rather pathetic.

Mr. John Smith: Oh!

Mr. Johnston: The Minister may grunt. It is a characteristic of Ministers that they grunt from time to time, but when I have finished he may intervene and tell me why my remarks are unfair.
The first thing that Lord McCluskey said was that the proportional system would not be absolutely proportional and, therefore, it would not be very much better than the first-past-the-post system. On 4th April he told the House of Lords:
Let me suggest first of all that direct elections, first-past-the-post elections, do not necessarily produce a markedly non-proportional result, though of course I acknowledge that they can.
What a generous chap he is! But that is a wholly bogus argument. It was further marred by the fact that he clearly misunderstood Lord Kilbrandon's amendment, and he had to be corrected by Lord Drumalbyn. The Minister of State keeps frowning even though he has stopped grunting.
Lord McCluskey went on to say that PR was likely to lead to a coalition. I quote from the same debate, in which he said:
It is very likely to lead to a coalition, or the possibility of a coalition, and coalitions tend to be weak and unstable and they tend to be lacking in authority.
With all respect, I reject that argument. It is the argument of the Exclusive Brethren of politics. It is the argument that one should have nothing to do with anyone else if one does not entirely agree

with him. It is totally denied by almost every democracy in the world, and notably in Europe.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there any democracy in the world in which one partner to a coalition is actually working at the break-up of the State?

Mr. Johnston: I would not know. But the point is that one can reach an accommodation with anyone if one tries hard enough. The hon. Member for West Lothian appears to be suggesting that he would not have anything to do with anyone.
The other argument against PR has not yet been advanced today but has been put forward on previous occasions. It was stated by Lord McCluskey on 4th April. He said:
Another tendency is to put fairly small Parties with relatively small electoral support into powerful positions holding a balance between other Parties and so perhaps give to the smaller Parties a bargaining strength out of all proportion to their electoral support."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th April, 1978; Vol. 390, c. 101–103.]
I recognise that this is being regarded by the opponents of change as an argument of force, but it is not a political reality. The political reality, which is seen in coalition after coalition throughout the democratic world, is that the lesser partner inevitably has to give way and cannot get an excessive degree of acceptance from the larger partner.
The fourth argument, set out in column 103 of that debate, was that, the devolution Bill being itself an experiment, it was unwise to engage in a further experiment. This can best be described as the plum duff agreement, heavy and out of season. That argument was dealt with effectively by others. The last argument he produced was that the Commons would not like it and, therefore, the Lords should not do it. I do not regard that as a very startling argument.
The fact is that opposition to proportional representation from Scotland from both Front Benches wholly lacks intellectual consistency, and in my view it lacks morality also. The obvious evidence is Northern Ireland. In other words, the fact that the Government feel it appropriate to introduce PR into direct elections for the European Parliament to protect a minority there while in the


same breath and at the same time denying it to Scotland is a blatant and bile-making hypocrisy.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Johnston: It is not absolute nonsense. It is a fact.

Mr. Kerr: It is a totally different situation.

Mr. Johnston: I agree that it is a totally different situation. In Northern Ireland they are throwing bombs. That is regarded as different and means that one can give way.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: The hon. Gentleman referred to lack of consistency by the two Front Benches. I received a letter from the Liberal candidate in Peterborough and leading members of the Cambridge Liberal Party urging me to vote against these amendments on the ground that it is an inadequate method of handling the matter. How can the hon. Gentleman accuse us of being inconsistent?

Mr. Johnston: We all have our problems! I am aware of the activities of the Liberal candidate in Peterborough. It has also been drawn to my attention that in Peterborough, which used to be represented by Lord Harmar-Nicholls, by a hair's breadth time after time, 66 per cent. of those entiled to vote elected nobody and the other 34 per cent. elected the Member of Parliament. I would have thought that that encapsulated very well the argument for having PR. Therefore, I would reject the advice of the Liberal candidate for Peterborough which, I suspect, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) would have done even without my advice.
I concede to the hon. Gentleman and to others that many Conservative Members have had an honourable record on electoral reform, but the view of their leadership is very unclear. The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) today did not clarify matters. Certainly the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition can-nor say on the one hand
Let us have no humbug. Let Ministers listen to the people for a change instead of preaching at them.

and on the other hand reject contemptuously any proposal for electoral reform, despite the fact that the opinion polls recently by The Economist have shown 68 per cent. support and only 15 per cent. opposition and that support in the right hon. Lady's constituency of Finch ley amounted to 66 per cent. I am sure that, had those same people been polled on a United Kingdom basis and had it explained to them what the three-and-one-third position was in Scotland, they would have voted even more substantially for a PR system in Scotland.
5.45 p.m.
The Liberal Party traditionally has advocated the STV system. It has done so because in our opinion it combines choice of one's individual candidate and choice of party and has geographical relevance. But let me say to those who defend the first-past-the-post system on the grounds that because of our constituency system—this is true, I think, of the right hon. Member for Down, South—we elect a Memeber for his qualities and not as a member of a party, that that is totally untrue and experience shows that it is quite otherwise. There are a number of hon. Members who obtain additional votes because of their capacities, but I do not think that this is a general matter.

Mr. Powell: I do not want to lengthen the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I wish to point out that this is the second time that he has accused me of believing that Members should be elected as individuals and not as representing a party. All my political life I have been an almost fanatical advocate of party in politics. That is the reason why I declined to stand as an independent candidate in my old constituency of Wolverhampton, South-West. At least that cannot be attributed to me, whatever else can.

Mr. Johnston: All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman, in tying himself very closely, as I am sure he would admit, to the importance of geographical representation, is essentially and implicitly making an argument against the party matter as being less important.
Before I conclude, I wish to refer to only one further matter, and that is the argument to the effect that this proposal is what is called the thin end of the wedge.


It is most unfortunate that our rules of order prevent hon. Members from quoting directly from the speeches of noble Lords. Nevertheless, perhaps I may paraphrase some of the remarks made by Lord Hailsham. He pointed out clearly and effectively, with the logic for which, when he was in this place, he was famed, that if a proportional system is successful in Scotland, surely it will be the thin end of the wedge because it will he seen to be a good thing to follow. If it is not successful, which is what all opponents of PR systems argue, it will not be. How one can put forward that argument at all, as a matter of intellectual substance, is quite beyond me.
Our debate is short and I do not wish to continue it further. However, I shall end by making three very short points. First, I ask why it is that, although proportional representation is acceptable in Northern Ireland, it is not acceptable in Scotland. I think that it is exactly due to the violence there and for no other reason. Hon. Members should recognise that fact. I also ask what justification there can be for supporting a system which has been shown to produce 58 per cent. of the seats for 36 per cent. of the votes.
Lastly, I must tell the House that the longer it cynically denies justice, as it does, in pursuit of the simple back-and-fore business between the two large parties and denies it not only to Liberal and moderate elements in the electorate but in general to the electorate, the nearer comes the threat of authoritarianism of Right or Left which in its words it condemns but in its actions it encourages.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It fell to my lot once before to follow the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) in a discussion on PR. He took great umbrage when I said that fairness was the last refuge of the wet. I meant that there is one argument propounded by the hon. Gentleman, by his party and by those in favour of PR which is the simplistic, surface argument that it is a fairer system on election day in relation to votes and the return of Members to this place—as if that finishes the question.
It is a simplistic approach to say about politics that this is the only element of democracy that is involved in judgment and the only element of democracy in-

volved in our relationships between this House and the electorate outside it. There can be even greater unfairness achieved than the imbalance that may exist, be it greater or lesser according to particular swings from year to year, in an element of proportional representation which can eventually deny the right of the electorate to achieve the kind of majority in the House for which it has voted in supporting a particular party. I realise that this may be difficult for the hon. Member for Inverness to understand, so I shall explain it to him.
In the course of an election, people should come forward to the electorate and say "Here I stand. Here my party stands. I seek your vote in order that we can go into Parliament to achieve this programme." The consequence of proportional representation, particularly in the proposed form, would be that, immediately an election took place under that system, a coalition structure would be necessary and the moment that such a structure became necessary the party and person who had been voted in on a particular programme would have to turn round and say to the electorate "You can forget all that we have been saying for the past three weeks and all that you voted for because we have entered a coalition and are developing another policy." That is precisely what will happen. If hon. Members believe that it will not happen, what the blazes have we been trying to do with the Liberals and the voting patterns in this Parliament, which in many ways has been a hung Parliament? There is a Bill with which I am concerned that I cannot get through because Parliament is hung.
These proposals make coalition government more likely. It is inevitable because the moment we introduce an element of proportional representation, particularly one based on the alternative vote system, several things happen. First, there is nothing to prevent the proliferation of parties. It is an open secret that we have in the Labour Party the manifesto group, the Tribune group and a vast, turgid mass in the middle. However, we say that we will fight on a common programme and, on the basis of that programme, will combine in Parliament to try to achieve it.
The moment that we can say that we can fight on our own specific programme


because, in any case, we can form a coalition the day after the election and deny our programme, we shall be selling a bogus programme to the electorate. Coalitions are not only more likely, they are inevitable.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In Ireland at the moment there is STV, no coalition and overall majority, and Sweden had until recently a one-party Government under proportional representation.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is dragging me away from my argument. I had wanted to deal with Northern Ireland very briefly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I was referring to the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Buchan: I do not want to get involved in the politics of Southern Ireland. In most countries with proportional representation and in which political programmes have been based on social attitudes rather than on history, particularly history between 1916 and 1923, which tends to be the basis of the main political parties in Ireland, the situation that I have described inevitably comes about. What has happened in West Germany is an example of that.
We cannot accept as an argument in favour of proportional representation the position that we face in Scotland, and it cannot be buttressed on the ground that a parallel can be drawn with Northern Ireland. It is claimed that there is a parallel because in Scotland we have a fourth party seeking an independent and separate Scotland. However, the difference is that in Northern Ireland there is the problem that, rightly or wrongly, two communities sense themselves as being two communities, and one suspects the other of having an allegiance not to independence but to joining another country.

Mr. Powell: Under proportional representation, where it applies in Northern Ireland, the majority community—as the hon. Gentleman wishes to regard it—still has a majority of the seats.

Mr. Buchan: That is true, but when dealing with the sort of situation that exists in Northern Ireland the answer is not necessarily or ever proportional representation. It is to recognise that the two communities sense themselves as two communities, and that is an argument for

power sharing. I endorse that argument. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) probably does not, but it is irrelevant to the argument about proportional representation.

Mr. David Crouch: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he considers that proportional representation is fair in Ulster but would not be fair in Scotland? If so, how does he draw that distinction?

Mr. Buchan: I said that it was an irrelevant argument to different circumstances. The difference is that in Northern Ireland there is, rightly or wrongly, a sense of two communities and not merely a division into politics because of social and economic issues.
It is also not an argument in favour of proportional representation to say that we may have an SNP majority in Scotland. If that problem arose—there is no sign that it will—the sense of the Scottish people and of the more intelligent members of the SNP would have to accept the necessity for a majority vote and not just a majority of seats in the Assembly. It would give the SNP an argument for immediately entering into discussions and negotiations on independence, but, as Professor McCormick has argued, the mandate would more properly be that of the vote. I accept that.
I take my chance on that possibility. If there were such a victory for the SNP, it would be right for us to face the consequences, but there are no recent indications that this will happen.
The basic arguments in favour of proportional representations are those in favour of the retention of the status quo. Proportional representation inevitably leads to fragmentation and coalition, which inevitably leads to government of the centre, which means government for the retention of the status quo.
Those of us who are in politics in order to change society radically cannot possibly accept that prospect. We say that our task is to achieve a majority backing in the community which reflects itself in a majority representation in the House in order that we can bring about decisive and radical social changes. Proportional representation would inevitably inhibit that. I reject PR because it rejects democracy for the electorate, who would be


deprived of having the representation in the House to carry out the programme chosen by electors at the election, and I reject it because it is an impediment to, rather than an advancement of, human progress.
I agree with those who say that we have yet another practical problem. Even if we accepted the rather injudicious figures and analyses that have been swapped around, there is no foreseeable governmental benefit which could arise in Scotland. With whom could any of the parties combine? All three of the leading parties—Tory, Labour and SNP—could combine with the Liberals. That is about the only possibility of a combination in Scotland. The consequence of that would lead to a third situation, but not one of the combinations could achieve a majority.
6.0 p.m.
Given the present figures, we are asking the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Taylor) to form a coalition with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). That is a delightful thought. I hardly expect that coalition to take place. Are we expecting the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) to form a coalition with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? Is that on the cards? It is all nonsense, and everybody knows it.
The argument for proportional representation as a means of achieving fairness is the last level of argument of the wet. Those who advance the argument have not begun to think of the relationship of the House to good government and to the electorate. It is an argument that should be rejected.

Mr. Reid: How desperate the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is for the old ideological certainties. I suspect that his ideal Parliament is one in which he can sit happily blinkered with similarly blinkered Members opposite and engage in ya-boo confrontation and gladiatorial contest. That would be achieved, in his present position, with about 35 per cent. of the vote. The hon. Gentleman wants the stamp of firm government, although the Labour Party in Scotland since the war has never.had a popular majority of the vote.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), like the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, believes in the sovereignty of the House. The right hon. Gentleman considers that the House is the perfect culmination of 1,000 years of history, with its institutions and for methods suitable for export throughout the world—for example, to Tuvalu—including Scotland. He believes that there is nothing wrong with an Assembly that a dose or injection of Westminsteritis will not cure. He and others forget that the situation north of the border is different. We are not, as he asserts, 'part' of the kingdom. My hon. Friends and I believe Scotland to be a nation in its own right. For example, we have different ways of going about our business in health, education and schools.
We believe that in Edinburgh there is no need for an Assembly to be a carbon copy of the House in its electoral practice and committee system. We consider that there is a good case for trying some reforms, some different ways of running our business. At the end of the day we believe that that may be good for Westminster and may unlock, too, some of the minds in the House. We argue from that point of view.
It is a great pity that some right hon. and hon. Members have toyed with the concept of electoral reform more as a means of dishing the SNP than as a concept that has merit in its own right.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew attention to a letter which appeared earlier in the week in The Times above the name of a bunch of noble Lords. Their approach to the problem is a case in point. They wrote fearfully of what they called the Quebec precedent. They referred to Rend Levesque and the Party Quebecois, which gained two-fifths of the popular vote yet three-quarters of the seats. They hinted that a similar development was imminent in Scotland and that under a first-past-the-post system of winner-takes-all a bunch of SNP wild men could find themselves in the Assembly claiming that the result was an outright mandate for independence.
I say to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others that the only mandate that an SNP group in the Assembly will be bound by is what is in


its manifesto. That is the limit of our commitment. We cannot go beyond that in what itself is a devolved legislature.

Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if under a first-past-the-post system or a proportional representation system the SNP achieved a majority of the Scottish seats, many people would have voted for it for reasons unconnected with its manifesto—perhaps, understandably, in protest against other parties? Does he accept that there would have to be a referendum before it could be said that a party had a mandate on proportional representation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): There are still a substantial number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) to try to reduce the number of interventions that he allows by those who have already taken part in the debate.

Mr. Reid: I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Garscadden. What he said in his intervention happens with all parties, including his own. It would be churlish of the Government Front Bench to deny that when the SNP was running very high in the opinion polls in Scotland—it had 36 or 37 per cent. support—a swing of about 1 per cent. could have led to the nationalists scooping the pool. However, we held firm in our commitment to electoral reform. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West smiles.

Mr. Buchan: I have dealt with that argument.

Mr. Reid: We have been utterly consistent in advocating electoral reform, and we continue to do so.
The only question before the House is whether the form of electoral reform advanced in the amendments is suitable. Certainly it is a form that could be introduced quickly, as the Minister knows, without any great problems. It has the advantage of adding Members on the basis of geographical location. In that way there would be a sense of regional identity among Members, be they from central Scotland, north Strathclyde or the Highlands.
As many hon. Members have said, we already have a form of electoral reform in practice for Europe. In Ulster, STV is proposed for elections to the European Parliament. A later Lords amendment, no. 11, urges that the Assembly should be able to determine a new system of electoral reform. That is something that my party will support and force to a vote. There are many guarantees. Whatever proposals the Assembly advanced, they would have to come back to Westminster and pass through both Houses by positive resolution procedure. We believe that it is unfair that the Assembly should be so fettered that it cannot devise its own electoral system.
The commitment of the SNP to electoral reform through thick and thin is the one guarantee that the party is devoted to a gradual and responsible transfer of power from the House to Edinburgh. In the last election returns, the Labour Party had 36 per cent. of the vote and 41 Scottish seats. There are 11 Scottish National Party Members representing 30 per cent. of the votes. That is not a happy situation. It is a situation that leads to yah-boo and gladiatorial contest. We shall continue to support electoral reform and the measures contained in the amendments. If electoral reform becomes a ping-pong match between the two Houses we shall not be mere spectators. If there is no electoral reform in Scotland and if the SNP wins in Scotland as Rend Levesque and the Parti Quebecois won in Quebec, so be it.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I am sorry to intrude into the debate an English voice from the Labour Benches. However, we are debating an issue that should be of concern to all hon. Members from whatever part of the country.
I am not using the thin end of the wedge argument. I believe that the amendments from another place represent not the thin end of the wedge but the thick end. Their lordships have suggested that we stick into the middle of our system of government an Assembly elected by a system of proportional representation while we keep at this end of the system of government, in Parliament, and at the bottom end of the system of government, in local government, the first-past-the-post system. To my mind that is total nonsense.
I speak without any bias. I have an open mind on proportional representation and systems of PR. I have voted for proportional representation, or a form of it, for the European Assembly. However, I do not wish to see it introduced at an intermediate stage of government, which would pre-empt the argument for the introduction of proportional representation at every other level in the system. That seems to be one of the knock-down arguments against accepting the amendments.
I should be happier, too, if the system proposed were different. I admit that the system proposed for the European Assembly elections was not ideal either. The great weakness of the AMS method as it comes through in the amendments is one that is familiar to the House. It is a system that puts all power into the hands of the party. I say as delicately as I can that I for one would not want to rely entirely upon a system where the party bosses rank candidates in terms of their prospects of election. I hope that I phrase that delicately enough. In the long run such a system would be disastrous.
I am not happy either if we think of alternatives, such as the STV system. That system always seems to me to work perfectly well in multi-Member constituencies in urban areas. However, I have no wish to represent the whole of the rural county of Shropshire, which is one of the largest inland counties. I do not wish to be the sole Labour Member for the county, which is exactly what I should be under STV.
I do not know what I would do if during a weekend I had a phone call from someone living 50 miles from my residence telling me that he had an urgent problem and asking me to visit his home because he was a Labour voter.
There are weaknesses in every system of proportional representation. I argue that we can have such a system—it may be that STV is the best—provided that we are prepared to consider a total reform of our political system and not merely the mode of electing members. Consideration has to be given to proportional representation in the context of support for parties and support for individual Members, not merely the mode of election. That is precisely what we never give.

To fail to do that, to look at the mode of election in isolation and to do it in the context of an intermediate Assembly, which is neither the national Parliament nor local government, seems the most arrant nonsense. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the amendment.
We have heard tonight that what is good for Northern Ireland is good for Scotland. We all know the special case about Northern Ireland. Putting the matter bluntly, we still have the politics of the seventeenth century in Northern Ireland. We have sectarian, community, politics which, thank heaven, we do not have in that form in Scotland. We do not have in Scotland a two-group, two-community, system. We have, as many hon. Members have pointed out, what might be called a three-and-a-half party system. I suppose that we should concede to the Liberals that they are at least one-half, but I am tempted to say that it is a three-and-a-quarter party system. There is no possibility there of the tyranny of the majority over the minority in sectarian terms. That could not happen in the Scottish context. Therefore, there is no point in trying to set a precedent in the Scottish context.
The example of the Republic of Ireland has been adduced. I am amazed that hon. Members should want to quote that as an example of the way that PR works. If we had two parties called the Soldiers of Destiny and True Gael relating to the politics of 1916 to 1923, perhaps we might get away with a PR system. Fortunately, we in this country do not vote on historic issues long dead. Therefore, we do not, or we should not, assume that a PR system in this country would work in the same way.
I see no case for accepting these amendments in their present form. I see a very strong case for this House in future considering the introduction of several forms of proportional representation—we should have open minds about this matter—and considering those forms of proportional representation for elections at every level throughout the United Kingdom. That is an entirely different question, but this is the wrong way to approach the matter.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I cannot see why it is impossible to have proportional representation for one form of Assembly and not another.
I do not want to rehearse yet again all the arguments in favour of proportional representation. I shall not and never intended to do so. However, I want to refer to the comments made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who is no longer in his place.
I make the point straight away that proportional representation does not inhibit change. All it does is to inhibit change which the elected majority do not want and to inhibit change of an extreme nature. It is because of the latter point that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is opposed to it. I shall be referring to him again later.
Secondly, I cannot understand why there should be all this worry about coalition. Least of all can I understand that when we have had the Lib-Lab pact—

Mr. Emery: That has been a great success.

Mr. Morrison: Whether it has been a great success or not, it demonstrates that it is possible for parties to get together if one party does not have an overall majority in the House. We may not like the coalition that we have had on the Opposition side, but the two parties involved have perhaps enjoyed it.
Not surprisingly, in view of what I have said, I believe that the Lords amendments should be accepted. If they are not accepted, I think it will be because a majority in this House are fearful of one of two things, or perhaps a combination of both. First, I think it will be because hon. Members may be fearful of introducing a system which will allow the Assembly to agree only to matters which broadly have the support of the majority of the electorate and which will block proposals which do not have general support. The joy of proportional representation is that it produces Assemblies which more accurately represent the attitudes of the electorate.
Secondly, if this House disagrees with the Lords, it will be because it is fearful of an electoral system which may prove successful and might, therefore, be a precedent for election to this House.
6.15 p.m.
On the first point, I refer not only to what the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said today but to what he said on

22nd November 1977. Referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), the hon. Gentleman said:
His is a perfectly sensible prescription for those who want to manage society, but it is not sensible for those like me who want to change society.
That is my basic objection. I am in politics because I want to transform society."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1436.]
That was what the hon. Gentleman said, but he might have added "I want to transform society regardless of whether society and the electorate want to be transformed."
I should like to make two comments on the second of my two main points. I promise to be, and have every intention of being, brief. Arguments in favour of proportional representation in Scotland are very different from those in respect of proportional representation for the whole of the United Kingdom. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) dealt with that point very well.
Secondly, would it not be rather splendid if a proportional representation systern—the additional Member system currently suggested by the Lords—worked as well as I believe it would and provided a little more knowledge and experience of the working of proportional representation? If that happened, it would ensure a much more informed debate about proportional representation in its application to election to this House. Judging by some of the comments which have been made about proportional representation, I think that would be nothing but a very good thing.
Finally, I think that it is worth recalling the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), although he drew a different conclusion. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the extent of support for proportional representation in recent opinion polls. Would it not be a good thing if this House were seen to be paying just a little attention to public opinion? The Lords have done so. I think that the Lords are right, even if my respected and noble father was one of those who voted against proportional representation.

Mr. George Robertson: It may initially seem an impertinence for a


second new Members to speak at this stage in the proceedings, not having participated in the preceding lengthy deliberations. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I have been involved in the discussion that has gone on in Scotland about the Bill. Therefore, we come here with no little knowledge of the background feeling in Scotland about devolution.
I also come here with no preconceived bias against proportional representation. The result of the by-election gave me 51 per cent. of the vote. Therefore, I am immune to the arithmetical calculations that would be involved if proportional representation were to be introduced.
In considering the issues relating to proportional representation, I think that we must look, first, at the proposal in the Lords amendment. However much we might like to discuss the question of proportional representation as a concept or as it might apply to the electoral system of this country, that is not the question that we are considering. We are considering a precise formula put forward by the other House. Therefore, although many hon. Members and people outside this House might vote in a public opinion poll or in a referendum, if such a concept could be arranged, for a variety of forms of proportional representation, what we have to consider is a precise form of proportional representation which I believe to be inherently wrong and likely to be damaging to the country.
I turn to the motives which persuaded the Lords to come to their conclusion by such a handsome majority. Because of Mr. Speaker's ruling, I cannot quote precise words from the House of Lords, but I shall paraphrase some of the views that were expressed.
Lord Home of the Hirsel, who for a brief time was my representative in this House, saw a number of problems in the existing electoral system which he wanted to rectify in the proposals for a Scottish Assembly. He seemed to perceive within the existing political system an unhealthy trend. He said that this weakness involved the introduction of party politics into the system and he felt that that was likely to bring politics into disrepute.
Another non-political peer, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, agreed with Lord Home that the increased growth of party machines in the political system was detrimental. Perversely, that led him to the conclusion that we should have an electoral system based on the alternative Member system.
One of the major weaknesses of the alternative Member system is that it moves away from the existing political system and puts more power into the hands of the party machines. The Lords suggested that the introduction of weightier and weightier political machines, which they said had been introduced into the system only recently, would be countered by the introduction of a new electoral system but yet that system would mean that the party machines would have even greater dominance.
The crux of the weaknesses in the system which the Lords suggested is that there would be two classes of Member. I do not suggest that the alternative Members will be the second class citizens. They might be the first-class citizens because they would probably be assured of their seats election after election, so long as the popular vote did not decline by too high a percentage. The alternative Members might as well be the protected element in the system.
Lord Drumalbyn said that those individuals would have to be chosen carefully in order to introduce into the Scottish Assembly the same qualities as he divines in newly created Life Peers. I do not share his confidence that the party machines would necessarily pick Members on the basis of what was in the interests of the people. But whether or not people were selected who had all the qualities of newly created peers, they would be chosen by a process outwith the popular system of voting in this country. That would weaken the system.
One can also criticise the Lords' proposal because the basis of democracy in this country is consent. Unless there is a true basis of consent for the elected representatives, people will not tolerate the outcome of those representatives' discussions. A system which provides that alternative Members are elected indirectly will confuse and complicate the system. It might approximate to a closer arithmetical of representation of Members to


votes, but that complication will remove Government further from the people whom they seek to represent.
I recall that two years ago when I visited Brussels I picked up a leaflet in the street in which one of the local Government candidates asked "How is it that a Member can be elected when he is 25th on the list when somebody who is 18th on the list is not elected?" The complexities of that electoral system make it possible for somebody who is 25th on one party's election list to be elected before somebody who is 18th on the list.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does not the hon. Member insult the intelligence of the electorate? Admittedly the system adds a complication, but it is remarkable how quickly an electorate can adjust to another system and master it. It is a mistake to suggest that the suggested system is too complicated for electors to understand what they are doing.
The first time there would, perhaps, be a little difficulty but the electors would soon become used to it.

Mr. Robertson: I accept that eventually people would perhaps grow to understand the system and thereby create the degree of consent which I believe to be essential. But my anxiety is about the initial stages of the Scottish Assembly's life. I stood as a candidate for this House on the basis that I believed in the Government's proposals for the Assembly. I believe, not only that these should be a Scottish Assembly, but that we must create the conditions that will make the Assembly work and which will bring about consent earlier than would be possible if we introduced a novel and perhaps unique system. I do not underestimate the intelligence of the electorate. But it is crucial not to introduce an experimental system merely because we believe that we know the arithmetical calculations that should produce the best system of Government.
The dangers of a coalition have been highlighted my my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. The calculation based on the October 1974 election would produce the hung situation that my hon. Friend mentioned, but the danger that is inherent in that is not neces-

sarily that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred. He said that coalitions would be created and that coalitions are, by their nature, undesirable. A coalition created through such a permutation of voting would be undesirable because it would create the tensions and seeds of destruction.
Lord Kilbrandon said in his report on the constitution:
The system of Parliamentary Government now in operation at Westminster depends on the Opposition party having a real prospect of achieving power. But in some regions this might not be so.
If the proposed system were adopted it would be impossible for those who were not members of the grand coalitions to achieve power. That would diminish the authority and credibility of the Assembly.
It is suggested that the Assembly should have power to suggest changes in the electoral system. That is a recipe for disaster because everybody would be competing with each other to work out formulae for dishing their opponents at the next election.
I believe in the Scottish Assembly and in the role that it will play in the next 10 to 15 years. The formative years are the crucial years. If we impose upon the Assembly a unique system of proportional representation to satisfy our need for mathematical accuracy we shall foist upon it the seeds of its own destruction.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Rathbone: I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will forgive me if I do not follow him, except to say that I would have hoped that the most recently elected Members of the House—he and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—would be even more in touch with the electorate than those of us elected four years ago, and might have represented more closely this afternoon the views that their constituents have expressed in every single poll.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) regarded the debate on this question as being more important than the technical arguments which have been put by many of the speakers so far. Are we not discussing this afternoon whether the Government and we as a


House are concerned with political opportunism or adherence to proper democratic principle? If it is adherence to democratic principle, it is hard to see why the Government do not accept the Lords amendment and the contingent amendments as a sensible, practical and more proportionate system of electing Members to the new Assembly in Scotland. If the Assembly does not represent the true political complexion of the Scottish people—their own voice in their own affairs—then the Assembly will be a sham, and can only become an additional and unwanted layer of bureaucracy.
Until recently it could be argued that the two-party system was deeply ingrained and that the electorate had a shrewd appreciation of the way the system works, but no longer is this the case nationally, and no longer is this the case in Scotland. With the two parties using the first-past-the-post system, we used to be able to produce one governing party in a national or local election, and the public used to accept that as desirable—even in the extreme circumstances when single party government was achieved only by something of an electoral conjuring trick. But times have changed and people's views have changed, and not one opinion poll taken in recent years has indicated anything other than resounding general support for proportionate systems of election across all-party lines.
What is more, as was pointed out at the start of the debate, arguments which can be applied to support first-past-the-post elections to a legislative forum, from which an Executive evolves, are in no way appropriate to an Assembly such as is being envisaged for Scotland. The aspects, furthermore, which can be applied to support first-past-the-post elections to any chamber of government which has been in existence for many years—the arguments for the status quo—cannot be applied to a new Chamber.
It cannot be argued that the Scottish people could not manage such a system. People throughout the world have managed similar systems easily and found the results to be intelligible, reasonable and satisfactory. How much more should this not be applied to the canny Scots? In terms of democratic theory,

therefore, and in the light of democratic practice, the first-past-the-post system, as advocated for the Scottish Assembly, is crude, unpredictable, and unjust.
In some people's eyes it may be anachronistic that it is to the noble Lords that we have to look for the protection of democratic principle in this country. To others it may appear as a relief that they do so, tinged with regret that we in this House had not done so previously. Whichever may be hon. Members' points of view, the Lords amendments propose, through the additional Member system, a way to preserve that democracy.
Contrary to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that the system has been debated very thoroughly in this House in one form and has been debated very thoroughly in the other place in a slightly amended form. Is it not appropriate that their Lordships, seeing that this House had voted against it in its original form as considered here, should not seek to replace that same system, unchanged, but rather seek to amend it, to improve it in detail, and re-submit it to this House in its improved form?
It is not over any fear of electoral consequences that these amendments are worthy of support. Rather I put it to the House that at this time, when a new democratic Assembly is about to be born, a fair system of election should be used for the elections to it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If one further English Member may briefly voice a few comments, I suggest that the only justification for devolution is that we wish to improve the system of government in Scotland. But it seems to me that in this group of amendments we are not doing anything to improve the system but probably swapping one set of faults, which clearly exist with the first-past-the-post system, for a different set of faults.
What concerns me in this debate, and in reading through much correspondence in the newspapers and elsewhere about proportional representation, is the assumption that we can take the election results which have occurred in this country in first-past-the-post elections and then apply them as if people were voting in a national election, as opposed to one for individual constituencies.
It is clear that there is a great deal of tactical voting which has taken place in elections. I do not at this time want to argue how the tactical voting has occurred. It could be argued from the point of view of the Liberal Party that many people would like to vote Liberal but they feel it is a wasted vote, and therefore have not voted Liberal. I would argue that in constituencies such as Rochdale many people have a natural inclination to vote Conservative but for tactical reasons vote Liberal. To suggest that results achieved from first-past-the-post elections can then be interpreted to produce arguments for proportional representation seems to me to be extremely dangerous. Until we have had an election in proportional representation terms, we cannot really predict how people will vote in that sort of election. I accept that some assumptions can be made from opinion polls, but these polls are extremely dangerous.
What happens, under the proposed amendments, to the person who is about to vote? Suppose that he would usually support a party which is in a clear minority in his constituency. Does he vote for that minority and have no influence on who is elected to represent him in the constituency, or does he vote for one or other of the two people likely to win, thereby having an influence on the result in his constituency? As I understand it, he is not allowed to cast two votes, one for the particular named candidate in his constituency and one for the party. He has to make up his mind whether he is voting for the party or whether he is voting for a particular person from that constituency to represent him in the Assembly. I wonder what advice he could be given. Is it that he should remain loyal to his party, so that when the topping-up takes place he has some influence in the topping-up, or does he exercise his vote to influence the particular person who is to represent him?
I now turn to the question of the abstainers. If it is logical that we should try to find some representation for the minorities in each constituency, is it not logical that in the topping-up there should be some people put there to represent the abstainers? That may be absurd, but it seems to me that that is rather the way in which the argument goes. If the people in a minority in a constitu-

ency should have some representation, what about the abstainers?
It does not seem to me that the people on the topping-up list can stay out of the election. They have to be people who compete in the election. They will probably be people who have been rejected by a constituency and are then used, if necessary, to top up the number of representatives of a particular party.
If there is topping up from unsuccessful candidates, what is their relationship to the constituents by whom they were rejected? Do they continue to represent the minority of people in the constituency who supported them but rejected them in total? Do they represent nobody? Are they paid the same as those who might deal with a considerable number of constituency problems? What happens as another election approaches? Are they entitled then to start trying to represent the constituency that they hope to win next time round? There are many problems. I should like some answers before we move into this area.
I turn finally to the question of coalitions. Almost the essence of politics is the forging of coalitions. The question is whether those coalitions are formed before or after the election. In other words, are they approved by the electorate or are they fixed up by politicians after the election?
One of the fundamental aspects of the British political system is that we have almost always tried to forge those coalitions before elections. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party are, on the whole, coalitions, and probably in many ways the Liberal Party is even more of a coalition. Those parties are coalitions of people who put their ideas together and put them to the electorate, who approve or reject them.
It is not possible to say after an election why a particular party was elected. Was it for policies A, B and C or was it for policies D and E? When one forms a coalition after the election one may well put together one which includes all those policies which were least attractive to the electorate rather than those which were attractive to them. Therefore, it may well be found that the coalition is carrying out those policies which the electorate in general least liked, whilst


all those policies which the electorate liked end up abandoned.
The Liberal Party should be thinking seriously about its strategy, which at present is "Vote for us and then we hope to form a coalition with one of the main parties after the election." Many voters who would be naturally inclined to vote Labour might be very reluctant to vote Liberal in a seat where they see no prospect of the Labour candidates winning, if they discover that the Liberals are committed to a coalition with the Conservatives, which would almost certainly mean the abandonment by the Liberals of many matters that Labour voters might find attractive. The important point is that coalitions should be sorted out before elections and that the electorate should approve the policy, as opposed to a policy's being fixed up afterwards.
I hope that hon. Members who speak after me will answer those questions about topping up and the personal voting—does one vote for one's party or for a particular candidate, and how does that influence the final outcome?

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I hope that no one is deterred from supporting the amendment by the argument that it is an innovation in electoral arrangements in Britain or, in the particular system of proportional representation, an innovation for the United Kingdom. If we are prepared to be progressive and forward-looking when we are setting up new arrangements for the government of the United Kingdom, we must be prepared to consider new electoral arrangements as well.
One of the problems in the whole question of constitutional reform, and one of the forces and motivations that have brought the Government and the House to have to consider changes in government, is that for too long, particularly recently, we have been trying to find uniform solutions for the whole United Kingdom. In part the motivation for devolution in Scotland and Wales is a revolt against successive Governments trying to impose uniform solutions to the particular problems in particular areas.
Therefore, I hope that no hon. Member will be deterred when voting tonight by the fact that we are considering a system

of election which is an innovation. That is not an argument in principle that has much weight.
6.45 p.m.
Secondly, the form of proportional representation that we are discussing has been criticised. Almost any form has been criticised, and it is a matter of choosing which is the best.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) fairly said that in the course of our debates we had considered different forms of proportional representation, depending on the different stage at which we debated it. I do not think that we should necessarily criticise the form before us simply because those who have supported proportional representation appear to some extent to have changed their ground. The different forms proposed at different stages of this legislation have been related to the particular circumstances at the time In some ways the original form that we considered a year ago in the original Bill may have been the best.
I think that those who framed the amendments tried to fit the best into the size of Assembly that the Government have proposed. In considering the precise form of proportional representation, we must remember that, although this may not be the idea system, and there may be changes, it is important o establish the principle of proportional representation. Once we have established the principle, it may be possible in the light of experience to alter the practice, perhaps to adapt it to the Scottish situation.
The added Member system has worked well in West Germany, where what is significant is that the system has evolved over the years, with a different proportion between those Members for constituencies and those on the added list.
Thirdly, what is really important in this debate and in our decision tonight is that the House should face the facts of the present political situation in Scotland. We have a multi-party system, with three relatively large parties. Therefore, we should not look at Scotland in the light of the experience in the rest of the United Kingdom, which was for a long time based on a two-party system.
Even if devolution draws the teeth of those who seek independence, I do not


believe that that will mean a disappearance of the Scottish National Party. I believe that we shall continue to have it whether or not we have an Assembly. Therefore, in Scotland we shall see a continuation of a major third party and possibly even a fourth party. We must adapt our electoral arrangements for the system and for the facts of political life as they are in Scotland.
Therefore, it is wrong to draw a comparison with experience in the rest of Britain or to look forward and say that by doing this in Scotland we are necessarily anticipating what must be done for the rest of the United Kingdom. Our job tonight is to secure the best system of election for the Scottish Assembly.
For those reasons, which I have stated briefly, I support the amendment. There are many other reasons. I believe that under this system we are more likely to have a stable form of government in Scotland. As a result of talking to people in Scotland, I believe that with proportional representation we are more likely to have a form of government and a form of election which gain the broad respect of people in Scotland. After all, stability and respect are two of the most important matters. I believe that by supporting the amendment we have more chance of getting them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This excellent debate shows the limitations of the guillotine under which we are working. Although we have only about 11 minutes before the guillotine falls, there are about eight other groups or individual Lords amendments that should be considered by this House. No one has suggested that any hon. Member, with the possible exception of the usual wanderings of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), has taken an unreasonable time to advance his important points of view. That shows that it will be physically impossible for the House to consider in detail all the important points put before us by the House of Lords.
During this debate the views both for and against the Lords' proposal have been put very strongly and eloquently. It was interesting that some of the arguments, both for and against, were expressions of concern about the Bill itself. One point mentioned frequently—it was mentioned

by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—was the danger that in the Assembly, as we propose to establish it, it will not be possible to have a Government or an Administration that can carry out a policy in Scotland. This is one problem which they suggested might well stem from the adoption of the system proposed by the House of Lords.
It was pointed out, quite rightly, that in Scotland today it was more than likely, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, that we would have a three-party system, that under the system which is proposed by the House of Lords we could well have three parties which were not greatly different in size, and that it would therefore be necessary to have a coalition.
Therefore, as the hon. Members for Hamilton and Garscadden rightly said, how do we suggest that in a Scottish Assembly it would be possible to get the Labour Party and the SNP, or, indeed, the Conservative Party and the SNP, to agree on a programme for a Scottish Assembly?
I suggest that while there is certainly a major problem, and it is very difficult indeed to envisage circumstances in which either the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, or the nationalist party and one of the major parties, could agree on a programme, this is not something that is restricted to the adoption of the proposal by the House of Lords on PR. I think we all know that exactly the same thing could happen under the first-past-the-post system.
Therefore, the House should consider seriously whether this important discussion which has been put to us about the possibility that a Scottish Assembly will not be able to form an Administration to carry out a programme, because of the special circumstances in Scotland, it is not an inherent defect of the Bill and is not something related to the argument on PR.
The Scottish political scene is different. Only once since the war have we had a party with a majority of votes in Scotland. That was in 1955, when the Conservative Party just exceeded 50 per cent. That is something that we hope to achieve again. But we certainly cannot


count on that necessarily when we are preparing new constitutions. Therefore, the House should seriously consider whether we have not, in this important discussion, revealed what could be a major problem in Scotland and for the stability of the Assembly, whether or not we have PR.
The second general point is that I think that some of those who have argued for PR have made the mistake of assuming, as some of those in the House of Lords did, that with the kind of issues which are being devolved and the kind of people that we have representing Scotland as such, the issues are more liable to be subject to consensus and compromise. That appeared to be one argument advanced in the House of Lords—that because we had had only one vote, I think, in the Scottish Grand Committee over a long number of years, the nature of the issues to be devolved was likely to be such as to lead to an agreement or a consensus between the parties.
As I am sure the Minister of State will confirm, I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument about the nature of the Scottish Grand Committee. That Committee can consider only Second Reading Bills, which will inevitably come to the House of Commons. It is a Committee that considers only particular cases or Bills which are put to it by the House of Commons. There are many issues of controversial Scottish Bills which never go to the Scottish Grand Committee.
I think that the House would be wrong to assume that, because we have not had many votes in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Scottish Assembly would necessarily be of a kind and would be considering issues which would not lead to a great deal of conflict. The kind of issues that are being devolved, such as housing, education and so on, are the very issues that can sometimes cause major conflict between the parties.
The arguments on both sides have been put very fairly and strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) rightly said that one great argument for the PR system was that it reflected in a fairer way the views of the electorate. There was also a very fair reference by my hon. Friend the Member

for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who pointed out that if we had the first-past-the-post system there was the very real danger of creating the Quebec situation in Scotland, whereby only 40 per cent. of the voters could achieve a situation in which we had a body committed to separatism.
It would be wrong to vote in the Lobby tonight without remembering the very important example of Quebec, where a great deal of industrial trouble and the flight of jobs and, indeed, investment has stemmed from 40 per cent. of the people of Quebec voting for a separatist party. That is something that we should bear in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes was also right to say that we should not ignore the wishes of the public and that there seems to be growing support for PR.
In addition to that, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) may have scared some people away from opposing the House of Lords proposal, which some might have been inclined to support, because he pointed out that if PR was adopted it might be more difficult to have extremist points of view or, indeed, precise, extreme Left-wing points of view—the views of the hon. Gentleman—brought forward into legislation. On the other hand, it would be wrong to ignore the serious problems involved in the proposal from the House of Lords.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), in her very brief intervention, made the only reference during the debate to the important question of the consumer. It would be wrong to forget that the voter is someone whom we should consider, and we should consider not only politicians.
We must remember that if the Bill is passed and if we go ahead with the European business as well, the Scottish people will have a multiplicity of elections. They will be voting for European Assemblies, for Westminster Parliaments, for Scottish Assemblies, for regional councils, for district councils and in many cases for community councils. If on top of that multiplicity of elections we are to have different electoral systems at each level, it certainly could create problems for the voter.
The second point that must also be borne in mind is the fair point that the PR system is more likely to force an


Assembly into a coalition situation. Certainly we could be forced into coalitions no matter what system we have, but it is fairly obvious that under the PR system it is more likely that we could be forced into the kind of coalition situation which in Scotland, unfortunately, at present, might be a recipe for totally unstable government.
As has been rightly said, the possibility of a coalition between the nationalists and the Labour Party, which might be forced on the Assembly, is something that would be difficult. The fear of many of those committed to the Union is that in any such coalition the inevitable price which would rightly be demanded by the nationalist would be a further step towards separation. Otherwise, what would be the point of their engaging in a coalition at all?
If we do not accept this premise, we have the only other possibility—that of a coalition betwen the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. Frankly, even in a Scottish situation it would be difficult to see the Conservative and Labour Parties agreeing on a common programme—unless that programme was to do nothing at all.
In addition, we should not ignore the dangers of creating two kinds of Members of Parliament—one with a constituency base and one without. The hon. Member for Hamilton made a very fair point that perhaps those who did not have a constituency base might emerge as the super-Members of Parliament.
In addition, we are all very concerned about the possibility of giving too much power to the party machines. As the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) righty said, these will be selecting the people to go on to the lists.
The debate has shown, if nothing else, that while this is an important decision on the Bill it is not fundamental in relation to the great issues of the Bill. What the debate has shown is that those who are opposed to the Assembly will not find the acceptance of the AMS or the rejection of it as something which would change their fundamental views on the issue of the Scottish Assembly as proposed by the Government.
In these circumstances, it is absolutely right that we should have a free vote on this issue. For what it is worth, I

myself shall be opposing the PR system, because I think that on balance it would make a bad Bill worse. On the other hand, it is right that on such an issue we should vote for the system that we feel is more likely to promote stability and fairness in a Scottish Assembly, although there are many of us who feel that, no matter what system is adopted, there is an inherent instability in the proposal for the Scottish Assembly put forward by the Government.

Mr. John Smith: I am sure that many of those hon. Members seated behind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) were reassured by the last few sentences that he uttered. But I think that the balanced approach that he has shown in his presentation of the case is one that people have not seen very often in the past. Certainly some of his well-known ideological supporters had, during his presentation of one side of the case, some nervous upsets, which I could see more clearly than the hon. Member. However, I assure him that all seems to be well once again, and he is back in the good old reactionary camp. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that the House will be aware that I had in mind the hon. Gentleman's friends behind him.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) showed the same sense of balance. He was so acutely balanced that I am not sure which way he will vote in this Division. But it is the right hon. Gentleman's privilege to keep us guessing.
It is not part of my task tonight to develop the case at any length. Indeed, I am not able to do so. The Government have repeatedly made their view clear. We have said why we do not support these amendments and why we did not put a PR system in the Bill in the first place. We have done so on numerous occasions. But, like other parties, we have decided to have a free vote on this occasion. The Government's advice to Labour Members and to other hon. Members is not to accept these Lords amendments.
None the less, we have had a very good and restrained debate about this matter. Some of the objections to the party lists and other objections have been focused on the amendments, but hon. Members will have to weigh up the whole thing.

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 363, Noes 155.

Division No. 246]
AYES
[7.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Heffer, Eric S.


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam
Heseltine, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Higgins, Terence L.


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hodgson, Robin


Arnold, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Holland, Philip


Ashley, Jack
Deakins, Eric
Hordern, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dempsey, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dewar, Donald
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Les


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Banks, Robert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bates, Alf
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bean, R. E.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bell, Ronald
Dunlop, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bendall, Vivian
Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Durant, Tony
Janner, Greville


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bidwell, Sydney
Edge, Geoff
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Biffen, John
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jessel, Toby


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Body, Richard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jopling, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, John (Newton)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fyre, Reginald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Farr, John
Kelley, Richard


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fell, Anthony
Kerr, Russell


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bradford, Rev Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Flannery, Martin
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kinnock, Neil


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brotherton, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foot P Hon Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John
Lamond, James


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamont, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buchan, Norman
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Buck, Antony
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lawson, Nigel


Burden, F. A.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lee, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Litterick, Tom


Campbell, Ian
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Loyden, Eddie


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cant, R. B.
Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carmichael, Neil
Goodhart, Philip
McCartney, Hugh


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, Robert


Cartwright, John
Gorst, John
McCusker, H.


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Gould, Bryan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Channon, Paul
Gourlay, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Churchill, W. S.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacGregor, John


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Grieve, Percy
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Eldon
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clemitson, Ivor
Grist, Ian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grocott, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mahon, Simon


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marks, Kenneth


Cope,John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Cormack, Patrick
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cowans, Harry
Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Neil


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mates, Michael


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mather, Carol




Maude, Angus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Mawby, Ray
Price, William (Rugby)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Radice, Giles
Swain, Thomas


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tapsell, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Richardson, Miss Jo
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Mikardo, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tebbit, Norman


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mills, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Moate, Roger
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Molloy, William
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tierney, Sydney


Molyneaux, James
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tiley, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tinn, James


Moonman, Eric
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Torney, Tom


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rooker, J. W.
Trotter, Neville


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Ryman, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sever, John
Wall, Patrick


Neave, Alrey
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Ward, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watkins, David


Neubert, Michael
Shepherd, Colin
Weitzman, David


Newens, Stanley
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wellbeloved, James


Noble Mike




Nott, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wells, John


Onslow, Cranley
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Pollok)


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Silvester, Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Orbach, Maurice
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Ovenden. John
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Whitney, Raymond


Padley, Walter
Snape, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Page, Richard (Workington)
Speed, Keith
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Park, George
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Parkinson, Cecil
Sproat, Iain
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parry, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stanley, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pavitt, Laurie
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Woodall, Alec


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Woof, Robert


Percival, Ian
Stoddart, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John



Pink, R. Bonner
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Ioan Evans and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Andrew Bennett.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Aitken, Jonathan
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Johnson Smith. G. (E Grinstead)


Awdry, Daniel
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ford, Ben
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Forman, Nigel
Kilfedder, James


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Benyon,W.
George, Bruce
Knox, David


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
Lloyd, Ian


Bradley, Tom
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Luard, Evan


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Graham, Ted
Luce, Richard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gray, Hamish
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bulmer, Esmond
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
MacCormick, Iain


Carlisle, Mark
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclennan, Robert


Carter, Ray
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Madel, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hannam, John
Magee, Bryan


Corbett, Robin
Haselhurst, Alan
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Crawford, Douglas
Hayhoe, Barney
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Cronin, John
Hicks, Robert
Mayhew, Patrick


Crouch, David
Hooley, Frank
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Miscampbell, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mitchell, Auslin (Grimsby)


Dunn, James A.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dykes, Hugh
Hurd, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mudd, David


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
James, David
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick







Newton, Tony
Sainsbury, Tim
Tomney, Frank


Oakes, Gordon
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


O'Halloran, Michael
Shersby, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Sims, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Pardoe, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Watt, Hamish


Parker, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Weatherill, Bernard


Penhaligon, David
Spence, John
Weetch, Ken


Perry, Ernest
Stainton, Keith
Welsh, Andrew


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stallard, A. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Raison, Timothy
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Reid, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)



Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, George



Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thorne, Stan Preston South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rose, Paul B.
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Neville Sandelson and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tomlinson, John
Mr. Charles Morrison.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Lords amendment no. 2 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: no. 3, in page 1, line 13, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [4th July]:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 243.

Division No. 247]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allaun, Frank
Conlan, Bernard
Ford, Ben


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Forrester, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbett, Robin
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cowans, Harry
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashton, Joe
Crawford, Douglas
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
George, Bruce


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Ginsburg, David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dalyell, Tam
Gould, Bryan


Bates, Alf
Davidson, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Danzil
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dewar, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Henderson, Douglas


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hooley, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.
Horam, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Eadie, Alex
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Buchan, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Huckfield, Les


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, John (Newton)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Carter, Ray
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Janner, Greville


Cartwright, John
Faulds, Andrew
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
John, Brynmor


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (Hull West)




Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oakes, Gordon
Stoddart, David


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ogden, Eric
Stott, Roger


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Orbach, Maurice
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Kerr, Russell
Ovenden, John
Swain, Thomas


Kilfedder, James
Padley, Walter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kilroy-Siik, Robert
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lambie, David
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lamborn, Harry
Park, George
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lamond, James
Parker, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Parry, Robert
Thompson, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Litterick, Tom
Pendry, Tom
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Loyden, Eddie
Penhaligon, David
Tierney, Sydney


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Perry, Ernest
Tiley, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tinn, James


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomlinson, John


McCartney, Hugh
Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


MacCormick, Iain
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Variey, Rt Hon Eric G.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Reid, George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McElhone, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
ward. Michael


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Watt, Hamish


Madden, Max
Roderick, Caerwyn
Weetch, Ken


Magee Bryan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weitzman, David


Mahon, Simon
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Andrew


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.
white, Frank R. (Bury)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
White, James (Poilok)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowlands, Ted
Whitlock, William


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ryman, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Meacher, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Aian (Swansea W)


Hellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sever, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'oh)


Mikardo, Ian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius
Woodall, Alec


Moonman, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Woof Robert


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton E)


Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
Spriggs, Leslie



Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stallard, A. W.



Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Steel, Rt Hon David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Newens, Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Mr. Peter Snape and


Noble, Mike
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Ted Graham.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fell, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Antony
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Alison, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Arnold, Tom
Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Awdry, Daniel
Chaiker, Mrs Lynda
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Kenneth
Churchill, W. S.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Banks, Robert
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Galbraith, Hon T. Q. D.


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)


Benyon, W.
Cope, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Biggs-Davison, John
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Goodhart, Philip


Biaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Drayson, Burnaby
Gray, Hamish


Bradford, Rev Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Griffiths, Eldon


Braine, Sir Bernard
Duniop, John
Grist, Ian


Brittan, Leon
Durant, Tony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brocklebank-Fowier, C.
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brotherton, Michael
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Farr, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)







Haselhurst, Alan
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sainsbury, Tim


Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mayhew, Patrick
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heseltine, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Hicks, Robert
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Hodgson, Robin
Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George


Hordern, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Speed, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spence, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morgan, Geraint
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hurd, Douglas
Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Sproat, Iain


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stanley, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jopling, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Newton, Tony
Tapsell, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Nott, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, Richard (Workington)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knox, David
Paisley, Rev Ian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Thomas, Rt Hon P, (Hendon S)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D.


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Percival, Ian
Trotter, Neville


Lawrence, Ivan
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lawson, Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lester, Jim (Beestor)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)




Lloyd, tan
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakeham, John


Loveridge, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Luce Richard
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rathbone, Tim
Wall, Patrick


McCrindle, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walters, Dennis


McCusker, H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


MacGregor, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wells, John


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnnam)
Rhodes James, R.
Whitney, Raymond


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Madel, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Marten, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)



Mates, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Maude, Angus
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. John Smith: With the agreement of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in amendments nos. 4 to 10 inclusive.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that in the timetable order, which we very strongly opposed the other night, there is provision for the Government to move, and for you to put to the House, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments." There is no provision to put amendments together in the matter of disagreeing. I feel that that ought to be drawn to the attention of the House, since it was specifically excluded from the order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): In view of what the right hon.

Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has said, I shall put the Question on each amendment separately.

Lords amendments nos. 4 to 10 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("(6) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly review the system of voting prescribed by this Act and may by Bill amend that system.
(7) Notwithstanding section 17(3) below a Bill under subsection (6) above shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until it has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:

The House divided: Ayes 467, Noes 39.

Division No. 248]
AYES
[7.32 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Adley, Robert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Goodhart, Philip


Aitken, Jonathan
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Goodhew, Victor


Alison, Michael
Cope, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
Gorst, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Gould, Bryan


Anderson, Donald
Costain, A. P.
Gourlay, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Arnold, Tom
Crouch, David
Graham, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Crowder, F. P.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Griffiths, Eldon


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cryer, Bob
Grist, Ian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Grocott, Bruce


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dalyell, Tam
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Baker, Kenneth
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Banks, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Barnett, Rt Hon Jeol (Heywood)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hannam, John


Bates, Alf
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bean, R. E.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bendall, Vivian
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Haselhurst, Alan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hastings, Stephen


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dewar, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benett, Dr Reginald(Fareham)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Benyon, W.
Doig, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dormand, J. D.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Biffen, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Biggs-Davison, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Heffer, Eric S.


Bishop, Hi Hon Edward
Drayson, Burnaby
Heseltine, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hicks, Robert


Body, Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.
Higgins, Terence L.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunlop, John
Hodgson, Robin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunn, James A.
Holland, Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank




Horam John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Durant, Tony
Hordern Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Dykes, Hugh



Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Eadie, Alex
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Edge, Geoff
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Huckfield, Les



Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bradley, Tom
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brittan, Leon
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hurd, Douglas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge HIM)


Brotherton, Michael




Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Faulde, Andrew
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fisher, Sir Nigel
James, David


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Janner, Greville


Buck, Antony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Burden, F. A.
Fookes Miss Janet
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Foot Rt Hon Michael
John, Brynmor


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
For man, Nigel
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon &amp; P)
Forrester, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Campbell, Ian
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cant, R. B.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Carlisle, Mark
Fox, Marcus
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carmichael, Neil
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Jopling, Michael


Carter, Ray
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cartwright, John
Fry, Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Kelley, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kerr, Russell


Churchill, W. S.
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
George, Bruce
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clemitson, Ivor
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cocks, Rt Hon MI hael (Bristol S)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Lamborn, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Glyn. Dr Alan
Lamont, Norman




Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
O'Halloran, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stainton, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.


Lawson. Nigel
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ovenden,John
Stanley, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Padley, Walter
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Litterick, Tom
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Lloyd, Ian
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stoddart, David


Loveridge, John
Palmer, Arthur
Stokes, John


Loyden, Eddie
Park, George
Stott, Roger


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Parker, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parkinson, Cecil
Strang, Gavin


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Parry, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McCartney, Hugh
Pendry, Tom
Swain, Thomas


McCrindle, Robert
Percival, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Perry, Ernest
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McElhone, Frank
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


MacGregor, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tebbit, Norman


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Qregor
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiltery)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Ron (Eristol NW)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tierney, Sydney


Madel David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tiley, John


Magee Bryan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tinn, James


Mahon, Simon
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tomlinson, John


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rhodes James, R.
Torney, Tom


Marks, Kenneth
Richardson, Miss Jo
Townsend, Cyril D.


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marshall Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard




Viggers, Peter


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wainwright Edwin (Dearne V)


Mates, Michael
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wakeham, John


Mather, Carol
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maude, Angus
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mawby, Ray
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rooker, J. W.
Wall, Patrick


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.
Walters Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Ward, Michael


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Watkins, David


Mikardo, Ian
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Weatherill, Bernard


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Weitzman Davirt


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ryman, John
Wellbeloved, James


Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim
Wells, John


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Sandelson, Neville
White, James (Pollok)


Moate, Roger
Sedgemore, Brian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Molloy, William
Sever, John
Whitlock, William


Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Whitney, Raymond


Montgomery, Fergus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Moonman, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Morgan, Geraint
Shepherd, Colin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Shersby, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Silverman, Julius
Winterton, Nicholas


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Silvester, Fred
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Sims, Roger
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mudd, David
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodall, Alec


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woof, Robert


Neave, Alrey
Skinner, Dennis
Wriggles worth, Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Neubert, Michael
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Newens, Stanley
Snape, Peter



Newton, Tony
Spearing, Nigel



Noble, Mike
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Nott, John
Spence, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Oakes, Gordon
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Beith, A. J.
Buchanan-Smith, Allele
Crawford, Douglas


Blaker, Pete;
Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)







Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pell, Anthony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, George


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Pardoe, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhallgon, David
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devor


Henderson, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim
Watt, Hamish


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Reld, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Kilfedder, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Knox, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lamble, David
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Geraint Howells and


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


MacCormick, Iain

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 12 to 14 and 18 to 23 agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 15 to 17 disagreed to.

Clause 15

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS IN ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 7,
line 18, leave out from ("statement") to ("in").

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment makes a significant amendment to the provision relating to the protection to be afforded in the Assembly against actions of defamation.
Apparently, from the debate that took place in another place, there was no dispute between the Government and the Opposition about the desirability of having protection for Members of the Assembly against actions of defamation along roughly the same lines as the privilege which is afforded to Members of Parliament.
There were a number of arguments against the way in which the clause was drafted, and because of that this amendment was carried. But the Government are now seeking to persuade this House to disagree with it.
The first point that was made was that written material is not protected at Westminster. The Government believe that it is. Therefore, there is a plain disagreement.
The second point is that there is no prohibition on excessive publication—the protection afforded is not limited to the minimum publication reasonably necessary. If there were anything in this point, Members who have made defama-

tory remarks would not regularly be invited to repeat those remarks outside. The simple answer is that what is protected is a statement made in proceedings. If the statement is republished outside the Assembly, the courts would have little difficulty in finding new publication.
The third point is that the Government's clause would protect certain documents which are not now protected—notably, communications passing between Assembly Members and Scottish Secretaries. There is a logical hole in this argument. It is not realistic to suppose that, because a letter to a Scottish Secretary may lead up to or obviate the need for a question in the Assembly, a court would regard correspondence preliminary to setting down such a question as a proceeding of the Assembly. It is a preliminary to it or a substitute for it. This view prevailed in the Commons when considering the case of Strauss v. The London Electricity Board in 1957.
The amendment casts a doubt over whether the term "statement" includes a written statement as well as an oral statement—as it is meant to. Those who moved this amendment argued that it should not, and that written statements could adequately be protected by way of subsection (1)(b) of the clause, which protects the publication of any document under the authority of the Assembly. But this is directed to a different point. It means that before any document is privileged the Assembly must in some manner have authorised publication. Where it does not, one is forced to speculate about the meaning of "statement". The whole point of absolute privilege in this area is that it enables everyone to say what they want, for the ultimate public interest, without having to worry about defamation.
To sum up, the amendment, proceeding on a mistaken view of the effect of the clause, would on its face create an area of doubt and could well subtract


from the protection which the Government intend to afford and without which the Assembly could be handicapped in fulfilling its role.
No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) will have something to say about this as he is, I am informed, an outstanding lawyer at the English libel bar. He may even be tempted to create a new set of clients, but I think he will agree it is desirable that we shoud have privilege for Members of the Scottish Assembly, roughly along the lines of that which applies to this Parliament.

Mr. Leon Brittan: In seeking to explain why this House should disagree with the Lords in their amendment, the Minister of State went through a number of the arguments which had been relied on and pointed out their fallacies. I wish to point out that there was a fallacy in the last words that he used, namely, the possibility of creating a new set of clients for me. Although I managed to stumble through the Bar examinations in England, I have never done so in Scotland. Therefore, the prospect, alluring though it may be, of securing such clients does not arise.
On a more serious note, there is agreement between the two Front Benches that proceedings of the Scottish Assembly should receive protection from actions of libel to the same extent as proceedings in this House and in Parliament generally. Unfortunately, that is the beginning of the question rather than the end.
The Minister of State has cut a few corners in dealing with the problems that arise. This Bill in its unamended form, no doubt quite inadvertently, might well give greater protection to what is said and written in the Scottish Assembly than to what is said and written in this House. That is a conclusion that the Government do not want.
The only question between us is not one of principle that what is said or written in proceedings in the Scottish Assembly enjoys protection from the laws of libel, but whether what is said in the Bill itself goes beyond the current practice for this House and the other place.
One of the problems is that the word "privilege" is used in two different

senses. It is very easy to confuse the two but very important not to do so. In defamation, when one is talking about absolute privilege, one is talking about an immunity from suit in all circumstances in respect of material to which absolute privilege attaches. When one talks about privilege of Parliament, it is quite another matter. It is the whole set of customs designed to protect this House and the other place in enabling them to carry out their duties in a way in which the people of this country would expect.
One of the privileges that this House asserts on behalf of itself and its Members is freedom of speech to the full. This is privilege in one sense. It is also true that the law of the land—the common law and, to the extent that it is amended by the Defamation Act 1952, the statute law as well—also extends immunity to Members for libel actions on what is said and written in the proceedings of this House. It does not follow that the two are coterminous. It does not follow that the area to which privilege is extended by the law of libel is the same as the area covered by the privileges of the House.
In referring to the Strauss case, the right hon. Gentleman fell into the error of confusing one sort of privilege with the other. The fact that the House of Commons may have decided that a certain sort of document does or does not enjoy the privileges of the House cannot be a precedent for determining what is or is not absolutely privileged as far as the law courts are concerned. I see the Minister of State nodding, but what he said in opposing the Lords amendment seemed to indicate the opposite.

Mr. John Smith: I was bringing to the attention of the House that that was the view taken by the House of Commons when it considered this matter.

Mr. Brittan: I appreciate that it was a view and was no more than that. The real problem that arises on the law of that defamation, as opposed to any kind of Parliamentary privilege, is the precise extent of the operation of privilege for proceedings in Parliament. This has never been conclusively determined. Certainly it has not been determined in any kind of written definition.
Here one sees in the clause relating to defamatory statements in Assembly


proceedings an attempt for the first time to put into a written statutory form the exact extent of the privilege of this House relating to the law of defamation. This is not a proposition with which we would disagree.
8.0 p.m.
It is interesting that, because the precise area of privilege is not absolutely clear, the matter was considered by the most authoritative body that looked at the law of libel in recent times, namely, the Faulks Committee. That committee made recommendations and included a draft Bill. The problem was what was meant by "proceedings in Parliament". It is quite clear that something that is said in a debate such as this on the Floor of the House is a proceeding in Parliament.
Furthermore, there is no difficulty about what is said in Committee or about Written Answers to Questions or anything of that kind because they would be covered by clause 15(1)(b)—namely, as being a publication under the authority of the Assembly. There need not be any difficulty about any of the papers in the House in the normal sense of the word, such as amendment sheets and reports of Select Committees, because all of these would be published under the authority of Parliament and mutatis mutandis would be published under the authority of the Assembly and would attract absolute privilege under clause 15(1)(b).
The problem relates to what one might call ancillary writen documents, such as communications between Members of the Assembly and Ministers. All the Minister has been able to say is that the House, wearing its non-judicial hat, considering the extent of its own privileges and not in any sense purporting or being entitled to act as a court of law determining the extent of absolute privilege, decided that communications of that kind were not governed by the privileges of the House. Whether or not such communications were to be regarded as proceedings of Parliament is another matter.
We say that by writing in the words "whether oral or written" one is giving an indication to the courts which is capable of being interpreted in a wider sense than that which has hitherto been regarded as covering the amendment of absolute privilege in the law of defamation.

Mr. Dalyell: On the issue of absolute privilege, is it not a fact that it depends partly on interpretation and that the key phrase is
no wider than is absolutely necessary".
This was considered by Donovan and possibly by a number of other bodies. Is this not a matter of some practical concern?

Mr. Brittan: It is a matter of considerable practical importance, and that phrase does not appear in clause 15(1) as unamended. The bald inclusion of written statements in this privilege, without any kind of definition or explanation of what they are or the extent to which they go, is likely to lead to greater privilege in the law of libel being extended to the Assembly than to this House. The Government have said that they do not want that to happen, we do not want it, and indeed nobody appears to want it.
I see no mischief in removing the words "oral or written". What is the purpose for which the Government seek absolute privilege which would be removed if those words were deleted? They surely do not want the privilege to extend to Written Answers and are afraid that it would not so extend if those words were removed because it is plainly covered by clause 15(1)(b). They surely do not want the privilege to extend to the papers of the House of the kind which we are floating in at the moment in this debate, because that is also clearly covered by clause 15(1)(b). Let us remember that in the case of any subsidiary papers where there is any doubt attached, all the Assembly has to do is to publish them under its authority and the privilege automatically attaches.
What are these documents? The Minister says that the Strauss case shows that documents in the form of correspondence between Ministers and Members were not covered. Nobody wants extension to that position. Therefore, what are the documents which should be regarded as proceedings of the Assembly to which absolute privilege should attach which would not attach if this amendment made by the other place were accepted? I would say that there is none, although there are documents to which absolute privilege may extend—I cannot put it higher than that because until the courts have pronounced nobody will know— to


which it does not extend at the moment in this House, but to which it may extend if this amendment is not made.

Mr. Leo Abse: We are all obliged for the lucid account given by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). He said that the Front Benches were bound to agree that absolute privilege should be accorded to the Assembly, if it comes into existence. Why does he make that assumtion? Is it because it is to be a legislative Assembly? Is it, for example, suggested that a non-legislative Assembly, as is intended for Wales, should have privileges which go beyond that which is given to a county council involving qualified privilege?
In short, are the members of the Conservative Front Bench committing themselves to suggesting that there should be not only absolute privilege but perhaps even an extension of the privileges enjoyed by this House as interpreted by the House? Is he so keen and enthusiastic about extending absolute privilege that he would even extend it to a glorified county council such as will come into exstence, if it does come into existence, in a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows the answer, but it is nevertheless a fair question and I welcome the opportunity to deal with it.
We are faced with the dilemma in all stages of this Bill, other than Second Reading, of trying to deal with something to which we are fundamentally opposed. We have made it clear from the outset that the creation of an Asesmbly with powers approaching these is something we oppose. Nevertheless, we have to decide whether we contract out of the whole business of considering the matter in detail, or whether we try to make something of it. All Oppositions have always come to the latter conclusion. If we are to create a Scottish Assembly with these powers— and we are totally opposed to that being done—logically it must follow that the genuine proceedings in such an Assembly should enjoy absolute privilege.
The difference pointed out by the hon. Gentleman between a legislative Assembly and a non-legislative one is

fundamental. I know of no legislative Assembly to which absolute privilege does not attach in respect of its deliberations. When we are dealing with the Welsh Assembly, we are faced with an Assembly described as "legislative" or "non-legislative", according to which Minister it is and whom he is addressing. The truth is that it is a hybrid. It is a semi-legislative Assembly in so far as it is able to pass subordinate legislation. There is a borderline case, and personally I would be inclined to interpret the matter in dealing with privilege and the law of libel in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman indicates.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there would be no difficulty about Written Answers, which presumably would be covered by clause 15(1)(b). Will he speculate about Written Questions which were not ultimately tabled? Suppose that I were able to go to the Table Office and table a Question which was then rejected because it was thought to be defamatory or improper in some way. Would it be privileged, or would it be considered part of the proceedings of the House? It is a written statement which perhaps should be part of the proceedings of the House.

Mr. Britton: It is difficult off the cuff to give a view on that matter. However, my own view is that if it is accepted, there is no problem at all because it is then published under the authority of the Assembly. If there is any problem on that score, I believe that there will be no difficulty in solving it. If there is any difficulty, which I very much doubt, all the Assembly would have to do would be to pass a resolution to the effect that a Written Question, once it had been accepted and appeared on the Order Paper, was a publication of the House. There can be no doubt about that, and I think that I sense assent from the Lord Advocate—though I may be claiming too much.
The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting query about Written Questions that were not accepted. I do not claim to give a concluded view on that, but my instinctive answer is that it would not be covered by absolute privilege in this House now. Of course the problem does not arise because we must consider to


whom there is publication. A defamatory Written Question may be handed in to the Clerk, but the whole matter is in the realms of unreality because we have sufficient confidence in our Clerks to he sure that if a Question is defamatory and, on that ground, not acceptable, it would end up in the wastepaper basket and would not be handed by the Clerk to the person defamed, who could then bring an action for libel. Technically, there would be a publication, but it would almost certainly enjoy the protection of qualified privilege in any event.
That illustrates that these are not certain matters. If, for the first time, we are to give written legislative force to something which has not had that force, we should do it more carefully than by the casual insertion of the words "whether written or oral".
It is clear that this matter has been considered and that therefore the Government have had the benefit of authoritative consideration of what the ambit of parliamentary privilege should be in relation to the law of libel. The matter was considered by the Faulks Committee, the report of which has not yet been enacted, but at least gives us an indication of what might be a reasonable way of giving certainty to what has been an uncertain matter. The draft Bill that the Committee produced gives as a definition of absolute privilege:
All things said, done or written between Membersand Officers of either House of Parliament, between Members and Ministers of the Crown, for the purpose of enabling any Member or any such Officer to carry out his function as such providing that the publication is not wider than is absolutely necessary".
I am not saying that that ought to be the definition, but that was the Committee's view of what should be the definition. A single reading of it shows that the question of what ought to be absolutely privileged is full of pitfalls and is not as simple as the Minister would have us believe. If we are to resort for the first time to a statutory definition, it is wrong and dangerous to attempt to give guidance to the courts by merely inserting the words "whether oral or written".
I revert to the fundamental question that the Government must answer before we can approve the motion to disagree with the amendment. Granted that Written Questions are covered, that papers of

the House are covered, that the Assembly can extend that if necessary by making further authorisations under its authority and that the Minister accepts that, at least as he understands it, communications between Ministers and Members ought not to be covered, what documents does he think ought to be covered by absolute privilege, which would be covered by such privilege if the Bill stood unamended, but would not be covered if the Lords amendment is approved?
Until the Minister is able to satisfy the House that there is a genuine class of document to which privilege would be denied if the amendment were passed and that there is not a class of document to which privilege might be extended where it does not exist for this House, I am inclined to support the Lords amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Dewar: I approach the debate with a good deal of diffidence. This is an arcane and abstruse subject and I am not a junior, a senior or anything else at any libel Bar. Nor do I aspire to such giddy heights. Such matters do not normally turn up in the day-to-day business of the Glasgow sheriff court. I recognise that I am blundering into uncharted territory.
Their Lordships want to remove the phrase "whether oral or written". I am one of the few hon. Members in the Chamber without a special interest in this matter who has tried to follow the almost incomprehensible thread of argument in another place through Committee stage, Report stage Third Reading and back again several times—a genuine labyrinthal maze.
There were times when I thought that the arguments were quite comic. We had Opposition and Government spokesmen rushing, as they have tonight, to reassure each other that their aims and objectives were the same and that there was no disagreement in principle. In order to reach the same goal, they produced two different verbal formulae. It became clear that neither knew what the other's formula exactly meant or what their own formula exactly meant. There seemed to be a large measure of agreement that definition would have to wait until it had been interpreted by the courts.
On that basis, battle was joined and their Lordships divided. To the semi-layman, the debate had an almost Alicein-Wonderland atmosphere, but the matter was taken very seriously. Precedents, innumerable reports, article 9 of the Bill of Rights, and the works of Plato, were all quoted to bolster arguments.
I understand that, in a sense, it is quite a simple matter, when reduced. Everyone is agreed that absolute privilege is a serious matter and that it should not leak. It is important that the genuine activities and proceedings of the House and of Members and officials should be protected, but that absolute privilege should no be allowed to spill over carelessly to protect activities, documents and statements which are not the essence of the Houses' activities.
As I read the debate, I got a little confused about what the supporters of the amendment were saying and I am still confused after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). Their Lordships seemed to be saying at times that what they found objectionable was the word "written". If that word went, and there was no point in keeping "oral", we might just as well leave "statement" on its own. Distinguished former Clerks of the House and "Erskine May" were called to testify in their past writings. There were quotes from the report of a committee chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which said that only things said and done in the Chamber were entitled to privilege.
I get confused because at other times in the argument hon. Members opposite produced formulae suggesting that they are quite happy to have the word "written" included. The draft Bill produced by the Faulks Committee, which has been in limbo awaiting our consideration for some time, says that:
All things said, done or written
should be entitled to absolute privilege. That is commended by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby, the Earl of Selkirk and those who supported him. Their only objection is then not to the word "written", but to the failure to include as a qualification words that seem very difficult to define, namely:
providing that the publication is not wider than is absolutely necessary".

We might have an interesting and lengthy debate on what that qualification means. However, if we are arguing about whether the word "written" should be attached to statements in connection with absolute privilege in the House—that is what the Government are doing in the original clause—it seems that by saying that the Faulks's formula is a good one it is accepted that "written" should he included.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry, but not surprised, to learn that I should have failed to make myself clear. The issue is not whether the word "written" should be in the Bill, although we are opposed to it in the present form. The real question is whether privilege should be attached to a written statement; and we are not objecting to that providing that it is written statements only to the extent that they already enjoy privilege—namely, such things as Written Answers and the genuine proceedings of Parliament. However, we are saying that by including the words "or written" without any further definition we are risking the extension of privilege over and above the extent to which it already exists.
In talking about the Faulks Committee I was careful not to say that I was in any sense committed to that formulation I said that it illustrated that there were matters to be considered that render the mere inclusion of the word "written" as a definition a snare and delusion that it would be unwise for the House to include.

Mr. Dewar: I have some sympathy with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I think that I understand it. I may be wrong, but I think that I have an understanding. The difficulty was referred to fairly clearly by Lord McCluskey when speaking in another place. The noble Lord said that the other place was trying to draw a model from a blurred original. If we are dealing with a blurred original, it is unlikely that we shall end up with a precise model. We are all agreed on what we are trying to do, but we start from a difficult base with the present confused state of the law on privilege.
It seems that we have a choice. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that if we insert "written" there is a danger that we shall extend privilege to certain written documents that he cannot define


and perhaps I cannot define. There are certain written documents that he thinks should not be accorded that privilege. On the other hand, if we remove the phrase "oral or written" there is a danger that we shall be excluding things that should be included in exactly the same way.
I make what is very much a layman's point. What the statement means on the face of it is that included is any statement, whether oral or written, made in proceedings of the Assembly. It may be that the argument is about what is in the proceedings of the Assembly. That draws us into the complicated area of Strauss v. The Electricity Board, to which I plead guilty to being unable to plunge into. Indeed, I do not wish to plunge into those matters.
It seems that the argument is about that definition and about that phrase. It may be that it will have to be considered in a court of law at another time and place. I do not know about that, but it is clear that we have a choice of amplifying "statement" to include "written" or not to amplify it by including "written". Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is not standing rigidly by the Faulks' formula, it seems that by being able to put forward a plausible alternative, whether with safeguards or without, and including the amplification to embrace "written", and he seems to give considerable force to what the Government have been able to do.
When the time comes and there is a difficult argument of interpretation about the meaning of the words
in proceedings of the Assembly",
by including "oral or written" we are making it clear—there is the rather difficult example of Written Questions that will crop up—that the law is intended at least possibly to include a written statement and not to exclude it. My worry is that by removing "written" now we may be encouraging the courts to assume that such matters are being deliberately excluded.
There are enough ambiguities, difficulties and lacunae in this area without deliberately excluding "written". At the end of the day both Front Benches, and probably all parts of the House, agree that at least the possibility of covering written statements that are part of the

proceedings of the House should be allowable.
On that simple and commonsense basis—I admit that it is a difficult and narrow point—I prefer to play safe by leaving in the words "oral or written" to make it clear that the excluded clause is whether something is in the proceedings of the House or whether it is not. Once we get over that hurdle, it does not matter whether it is a written or an oral statement. The Government's version makes that a little clearer, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will repeal the Lords amendment.

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has drawn attention to an important aspect of what we are trying to do and of the difficulties that are implicit in our attempt to create an Assembly in our own likeness. All these debates make us realise what profound and mature deliberation is necessary for accomplishing such a process as we are attempting under the pressure of limited time.
The attempt that we are making—I hope that I may say this without irreverence—is similar to that of God Almighty in creating man in his own likeness. The difficulties arise from exactly the same cause: it is the omnipotent, creating that which is not omnipotent.
We have said that the Assembly created in our own likeness should have the same privileges, in both senses of the word, as we do. However, as we are creating, we discover that we have to define; and when we define, in a statute, there arises a fundamental difference between the privilege of our creature and our own privilege.
The privilege of our creature will, as it is denned in statute, be interpreted by the courts. It is the courts that will interpret the meaning of
made in proceedings of the Assembly".
I do not think that whether "written" is there or whether it is not, will matter very much, although I am in favour of keeping the words. The cogent and crucial issue will be the meaning and application of the term
made in proceedings of the Assembly".
Now, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, that is not the same as our privilege. It may be wider. I suspect


that it may be narrower. Either way, it is different. That is because we ourselves define our own privilege: if any question arises about what our "proceedings" are and what is their ambit, it is the House and no one else which decides. The privileges that we possess are those that we are incapable of conferring upon any other Assembly; for our privileges exist not by virtue of statute but rather like the values to which Antigone refers in Sophocles, where she says:
These things are living. Where they come from, no man knoweth.
Our privileges are derived from the past. They are implicit in the whole history of this country, let alone of Parliament. They cannot be transmitted, because they can be transmitted only by being defined, and they can be defined only by statute and, being defined by statute, their definition becomes subject to the courts as that of our privileges is not.
Having received that illumination, in this short debate, upon one aspect of what we are doing, I refer to another in the question asked by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He put his question in the context of the Welsh Assembly. Indeed, it is a fascinating and difficult question even in the form in which he put it. He asked: why should we endeavour to confer upon the Welsh Assembly, given the functions with which we are endowing it, the absolute privilege we enjoy in this House?
8.30 p.m.
He might have asked the question, and I think that we should ask ourselves the question, in this context of the Scottish Assembly. The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby brushed that question aside. He said that this was a legislative Assembly, and he did not think that there was any legislative assembly in the world which did not enjoy absolute provilege for its proceedings. But I proceed to ask: what is there about legislation, compared with the other things that an assembly might do, which specially requires the protection of absolute privilege? If I were making the case for the necessity of such protection, it is not to the legislative functions of an assembly that I would refer but to the critical functions, the debating functions. Those functions in the Welsh

Assembly will be equal with those in the Scottish Assembly. So it is not enough to say "The Scottish Assembly is a legislative Assembly, this House is a legislative Assembly and, therefore, the Scottish Assembly should have absolute privilege."
The true answer to the question whether an assembly should or should not have absolute privilege lies in the answer to another question: is it to be sovereign? We have our privilege because we are sovereign. If we did not have it, we would not be sovereign. Thus, we come to an even more important aspect or revelation, namely, that, however much we deny it, we are, by what we are putting into the Bill, creating a sovereign body. It is no use pretending that we can have two sovereign bodies side by side, or that we are going to be a superior sovereign body—"They are sovereign, but we are more sovereign". There is only sovereign or not sovereign. There is no such thing as less sovereign and more sovereign.
I am not sure that these considerations, which arise out of the earlier part of the debate, help us in deciding whether to disagree with the Lords amendment. I have said that I thought the Minister of State made out a case for disagreeing with the Lords in the said amendment. But this debate is none the less relevant, because even an apparently technical amendment such as this illuminates the nature of what we are doing: the portentous and essentially—in a unitary State—inconceivable act which we are attempting by the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: This proposal reveals yet again, after all these days, the old manhole theory. We come to something which looks fairly innocent. But what do we find? As soon as we lift up the manhole, we find that it is far more complex.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to say that absolute privilege should not leak. May I gently sugBest to him that, whether he likes it or not, in this instance frankly it is leaking.
I should like to put a question to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Is he sure that he is right—I may have got him wrong—in suggesting that in these circumstances the views of the House in this kind of situation should


be paramount? Are we not in fact legislating in a situation where matters having a political content could be decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

Mr. John Smith: The answer to that is "No".

Mr. Dalyell: It came up in a rather different context in a question—I had better not mention names; I suppose I might refer to him as a former Prime Minister—which was put to Lord Diplock:
After all, the procedure of vetting a Bill before it is introduced has been undertaken by the Speaker over all these years with great success and everyone from that moment knew where he was, and amendments which fell outside his ruling were almost automatically dismissed and it was accepted that they should be dismissed because he had ruled them virtually out of order from the start.
The senior Law Lord replied:
The essential difference is that once an Act has been passed by the Parliament at Westminster, whether it be called a Scottish Act or whatever, it is law, and it is unquestionable. No one can go to the courts and say: 'Please say that this is ultra vires as it is not a Scottish Bill because the Examiners were wrong when they said it was '. However, with an Assembly Act, after it has been enacted anyone who is affected by it can go—I hope it will be to the House of Lords—at any rate to the courts, and say: 'No, this was ultra vires' and it is their word and their decision that matters and not that of any of the Examiners who looked at it before."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 1064.]
I submit that there is an analogous situation in the matter that we are dealing with here.
I refer now to my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and ask: are Written Questions to be protected in any way? An example was given in the House of Lords when a noble Lord said:
It might be said that such Written Answers would be quite harmless".
But another noble Lord, with experience as a journalist, said:
I can quite conceive of a Written Answer in reply to a Question in which perhaps some suspicion was cast on, say, the financial activities of a company in the City of London. That written Answer might say that the Minister was causing an investigation to be made into the financial affairs of that company. Hitherto, and under the present law and procedure the reporter would be protected in taking that Written Answer from the tray and inserting it in his story. If the Amendment were carried, that protection would no longer exist and

Written Answers would not be protected in any way." [Official Report, House of Lords, 29th June; Vol. 394, c. 381.]
We must know the facts. Not only are the Members of the House of Commons or Members of the Scottish Assembly affected, but the whole code of conduct of what we call the Lobby, and presumably the Lobby in the Scottish Assembly, is affected. It is a matter of some consequence, certainly to ourselves and also to the Scottish press.
I make my next point in question form. There is a draft Bill on the subject of defamation which, no doubt, Parliament will consider in the near future. It has not been considered by Parliament. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden.
In dealing with absolute privilege, particularly in Parliament, the draft Bill states in Clause 7(6)(b):
All things said, done or written between Members and Officers of either House of Parliament, between Members and Ministers of the Crown, for the purpose of enabling any Member or any such Officer to carry out his function as such providing that the publication is not wider than is absolutely necessary.
We could argue about what is "absolutely necessary".
This Bill puts in 'writing', without that qualification, and I therefore have no hesitation whatever in saying that it is in fact an extension of absolute privilege." [Official Report, House of Lords, 29th June 1978; Vol. 394, c. 380.]
The peer who argued this case said that he had the agreement of the Lord Chancellor that it should not take place.

Mr. John Smith: Not for the first time my hon. Friend has made selective quotations from the other place. Fortunately, I happened to read that debate a little while ago. My hon. Friend will know that the Solicitor-General for Scotland on more than one occasion pointed out the inadequacy of the explanation that was given by the Earl of Selkirk. If my hon. Friend wants to quote from the House of Lords it would be fairer if he quoted in full.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is presumptuous of me at this early stage in my parliamentary career to raise this matter. But, earlier today Mr. Speaker, in response to a question by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) advised


the House that quotations from speeches in the Lords, other than those from Government spokesmen, were not allowed. Hon. Members who have spoken since have adhered to that rule. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will continue to read huge chunks of verbatim record from the House of Lords as though that ruling had never been given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He is correct.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was not been presumptuous. But if the Minister of State had his way I should have to read even the longer chunks.

Mr. John Smith: I made no such suggestion. I would hesitate to suggest any step in that direction. All I was asking was that my hon. Friend should be fair and quote accurately, if he must quote at all.

Mr. Dalyell: I was reading fairly accurately. But we are in a difficult situation. It is all very well for the lawyers, but some of us are non-lawyers and we have a right to be heard on such matters. Alas, through my misfortune, I have a considerable interest in the matter of privilege. Few other Members know better than I do precisely how important privilege can be.
I will not detain the House much longer, other than to quote, as I am entitled to do, from the Government spokesman. He said:
One should look at the wording of the Bill…They look not at Hansard, but at the wording of the statute which comes before them for construction. What we are protecting is to be found in Clause 16(1)(a). We are protecting by absolute privilege"—
this again was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden—
'any statement (whether oral or written) made in the proceedings of the Assembly'. Those words are absolutely crucial. The statement must be one which is made in the proceedings of the Assembly."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29th June 1978; Vol. 394, c. 384.]
That was the reply that was made, and I think that we should have a very clear answer, preferably for the layman—it may not be possible to satisfy the layman—as to precisely what is the position, first,

of Members of the Assembly and, secondly, of the Scottish press or lobby, or whatever one might like to call it, attached to the Assembly in Edinburgh.

Mr. Graham Page: I am opposed to the creation of something to our own likeness, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put it. But, having it in front of us in this clause, I wish to see it in the best possible form.
This is not the first time that Parliament has created assemblies with privilege. It has created Parliament after Parliament, from colonies to emerging countries. As far as I recollect, the formula on each occasion has been not to try to define it, as in the Bill, but to say that those Parliaments shall have the same privileges as enjoyed by the Parliament at Westminster. My right hon. Friend would object to that as creating another sovereign body, but that, as I understand, is what the Government are trying to do here. Let them come out with it plainly. As a result of trying to define it, instead of using that extremely useful formula, we find that almost every word in the clause is ambiguous. What is meant by a "statement"? What is meant by "written"? What is meant by
in proceedings of the Assembly"?
I shall not speculate upon the meaning of a written statement
in proceedings of the Assembly
Obviously it is extremely difficult to do it in this way.
Suppose that I write out an Early-Day Motion which is hghly libellous and hawk it round the Lobby to get it signed. Suppose that I even hand it to a Lobby correspondent. Suppose that then some of my friends tell me "This is awfully bad, you had better not do it" and I scrap it, without even handing it in. One can speculate endlessly as to what is meant by
in proceedings of the Assembly".
The difficulty comes from breaking away from that very useful formula that the new Assembly or Parliament shall have the same privileges as are enjoyed by the Parliament at Westminster.
I will take the argument one step further. The main advantage that we have in relation to privilege here is that we create our own privilege. If we vest the privileges of this House in some other


Assembly, we are giving it the right to decide upon its own privileges. I see no harm in that, once we have swallowed the idea of a new sovereign Assembly. I object to that idea, but if we are to have an Assembly let us set about it in the tried and well-known form. Let us adopt the formula which has been used for about 50 new Parliaments which have been created by the Parliament at Westminster. As far as I know, there has not been any difficulty about that formula.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: We have had an extremely interesting debate on a narrow but important point.
I take issue straight away with the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and indeed with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on at least one aspect. We are not proposing in the Bill the creation of a sovereign institution in the Assembly. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. What we are devolving is not sovereignty but powers. The Scottish Assembly will be a subordinated institution which is the creature of this Parliament. It is being created by Parliament in this legislation and, like Stormont, can be abolished by this Parliament. Therefore, it is not a sovereign institution. With respect to the right hon. Member for Crosby, that is the important distinction between the creation of the Assembly and the creation of independent States, formerly colonies, that are bequeathed as they are born with a set of institutions devised in this Parliament.
The House owes a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for the trouble he has taken in going through what he described as the labyrinthine detail of the records of another place. He simplified and clarified the issue. What is at the heart of this matter is whether it is better to have the words "whether oral or written" included in the definition in the Bill. My hon. Friend put the matter fairly by asking "Which is the better risk to take—having too narrow a scope of privileges or perhaps one that errs if anything on the side of being slightly wider?
What we want to do is to replicate the position that exists here, so that Members

of the Assembly will have no more and no less privilege in dealing with their affairs than there is in proceedings in Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Down, South reminded us, that is the key phrase in the definition. That is the intention. It is a shared intention. No one in the debate has disputed that.
We believe that if the amendment is left in the Bill, if the House does not disagree with the Lords, there will be some doubt about written statements. One hon. Member suggested that even without the word "written" a court could interpret the provision as including written statements. It might very well do that, but it seems to us that to leave the word out would be to create an unnecessary ambiguity.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) asked me what kind of written documents we had in mind, apart from Written Questions, which might be covered by the scope of subsection (1)(b). I have a certain suspicion about his argument, that the Assembly could create its own class of privileged documents merely by extending its authority to certain publications. I think that it would be an abuse of its authority to do that—merely to create a new class of documents and so define them.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "abuse". Uncharacteristically, he is less than precise in dealing with it. It may be an abuse in the sense that he would object to it, but the question is one of law, and the extent to which the Assembly can do that is governed, and governed only, by the language of subsection (1)(b):
the publication under the authority of the Assembly of any document".
Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, I can see no possible interpretation of those words other than that any publication which is under the authority of the Assembly has that privilege. I cannot see why the Assembly cannot, under its authority, confer that privilege on documents simply by publishing them under its authority.

Mr. Smith: That is precisely the trouble. Is the recommendation that the What we want to do is to replicate the position that exists here, so that Members


them with its authority, so that they thereby become privileged, rather than attempt to deal with the matter in the Bill? If so, it seems to me that while the Assembly might not be open to challenge on the way in which it had done it, it would be an abuse of its power to extend the scope of that authority which cloaks a document with privilege just because it wanted to give the document that privilege. We should try to make a better job of definition here.
It is almost impossible to consider what written documents might even be within the scope of proceedings within the Assembly—as difficult a job as it sometimes is to decide what written documents are within the proceedings of Parliament. But it is desirable that written documents should be included on a wider basis than merely Written Answers.
The following example was given in another place by Lord McCluskey. The Assembly might have pre-legislation committees, to which there might be submitted documents describing certain evils which the Assembly by its legislation should put right. It might very well be right to consider those representation as part of the proceedings, to say that they are written and therefore should be included. But it is extremely difficult to foresee what should be incorporated. I think it much wiser for the House to include the word "written" and put the matter beyond doubt. I think it much wiser that the House should incorporate the word "written" and put it beyond doubt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, at least let us not add to the complexities the question whether a written document is included or not.

Mr. J. Grimond: While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the matter, will he tell us whether it is the intention of the Government that communications between Members of the Assembly and the Executive should or should not be privileged?

Mr. Smith: As we read the Bill as it stands, it is that there should be privilege. That is my understanding of the position. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman has developed his case, and I think it is wiser to let it stand as it is.

Mr. Brittan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will need the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Brittan: I seek the leave of the House to answer the points that have been made.
It is understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should particularly welcome the arrival of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) as providing him with some much-needed support. On this occasion he has rather given the game away. What has happened is that the hon. Gentleman has said that the question is whether we take the risk of extending the privilege of the Assembly over and above the privilege of this Parliament or whether we have the risk the other way round—essentially, that is the argument—of not going as far. I hope that I have not done the hon. Member an injustice, and if he does not want to be party to that formulation I happily exonerate him from it. But I was going to compliment him on its being an accurate formulation of the problem that we have to face.

Mr. Dewar: What I was saying was that the vital part of the clause is
any statement (whether oral or written) made in proceedings of the Assembly.
The difficulties of definition arise in the phrase "proceedings of the Assembly." If one gets something that is over the hurdle and it is accepted as being part of the proceedings of the Assembly, I understood that it was common ground between us that whether it was written or oral it ought to be privileged. It seemed to me that the danger was that if one took out the phrase "whether oral or written", one might, by exception, be encouraging the courts to assume that one meant only an oral statement.

Mr. Brittan: I was not dealing with that point. I was taking a wider view. Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman does not wish to join me in this proposition, which I was gladly receiving at his hand, that is his pleasure. What I was trying to say was that, as I saw it, it really is a question whether one wants to include those words and risk giving to the Assembly a greater privilege than this House has or whether one thinks it is


better not to include those words and probably thereby give the Assembly the same privilege as this House, but possibly with a minute risk that it would have less privilege than this House.
As far as I am concerned, although I concede as a matter of general argument that in an Assembly of this kind it is right that there should be an absolute privilege for its genuine proceedings, where the question is blurred at the edges—the blurred original that Lord McCluskey referred to and which the hon. Member for Garscadden quoted—in those cases where there is genuine doubt as to what the privilege of this House is, I would say that it is not unreasonable that, in attempting to reproduce the privileges of this House as far as the law of libel is concerned for the Scottish Assembly, one should err, if it is impossible to reproduce them with 100 per cent. accuracy, on the side of a very marginal diminution rather than on the side of the risk of a very marginal extension. It seems to me that that is the point of principle on which we are divided.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised a wider question still. He asked why it should have absolute privilege at all and whether the distinction between a legislative Assembly and a non-legislative Assembly was an appropriate distinction on which to found a distinction between absolute privilege and qualified privilege.
That does not arise from this Lords amendment, and for that reason I did not go into the matter. But the truth is that there is no scientific touchstone for deciding which publications at large should have qualified privilege and which should have absolute privilege. If one looks at the lists in the textbooks or the statutes, one finds that one cannot see that there is a clear touchstone between the one and the other.
What one can say is that the test is this: how important is it that there should be a completely free expression in a particular body as compared with some restriction on that freedom which the extension of qualified privilege implies? The answer that one gives can only be an approximate and impressionistic one and must inevitably, if one is being quite frank, relate in part to the sheer status and the prestige of the body.
If one is going down the road of having an Assembly of this kind—of which the Opposition have made no secret that we disapprove—it seems to us that one is inevitably creating a body of such a status that it is quite wrong that it should have anything other than absolute privilege.
In relation to the question whether it is sovereign, technically, of course, the Minister is right. A sovereign Assembly is not being created. Whether it seeks to assert sovereignty is quite another matter, but it is not being created by the Bill.
None the less, sufficiently far along the road has been gone for the similarity to a sovereign body to be so great that, if we are to have it at all, it would be inappropriate that anything other than absolute privilege should exist for its genuine proceedings. But, where there is doubt as to what those proceedings are, I do not think that there is any justification in going further and saying that it should have greater privilege than this House has.
Perhaps I may answer some of the points raised by the Minister a few minutes ago. It seems to me to be right that I should have the opportunity of dealing with them. The Minister cited the example quoted by Lord McCluskey of the pre-legislative committee and documents submitted to it. It seems that in arguing for what the Minister calls the greater certainty, he is creating an illusion of certainty, because the inclusion of the words "whether oral or written" will not assist a court in deciding whether documents of that kind are in fact privileged. The court will still have to decide whether documents of that kind are statements
made in proceedings of the Assembly.
That is a problem that will remain.
The right hon. Gentleman would be deluding himself and—unwittingly, of course—deluding the House in pretending that the Bill, as unamended in their Lordships' House, gives any kind of answer to that kind of problem. In my submission, it most certainly does not do so. Therefore, we should not reject the Lords amendments on the basis that a greater vagueness is created. The truth is that that problem is unresolved. All that it does is to create a slight tendency and a slight presumption in a different direction.
The right hon. Gentleman said, somewhat to my surprise, that he thought that documents between Ministers and Members of the Assembly should be privileged. He said that in answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Yet when he was opening the debate, as I undertood what he was saying, he was giving the example of the Strauss Committee, which took an opposite view.

Mr. John Smith: I wanted to have the opportunity to clear that matter up. As I understood it, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was saying "Does it extend to". Perhaps I ought to make it clear that my view is that it extends to them if they are proceedings of the Assembly.

Mr. Brittan: That is a classical illustration of that well-loved but thoroughly undesirable animal, the question-begging formula. It certainly does not answer the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I detect from his laughter that he gets no satisfaction from that.

The truth of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman is defending—

It being Nine o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 237.

Division No. 2491
AYES
[9.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Henderson, Douglas


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hooley, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Horam, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Deakins, Eric
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bates, Alt
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bean, R. E.
Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dormand, J. D.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Janner, Greville


Boardman, H.
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edge, Geoff
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
John, Brynmor


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
English, Michael
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Judd, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Flannery, Martin
Kelley, Richard


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell


Campbell, Ian
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilfedder, James


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Carmichael, Neil
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry


Carter, Ray
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Freeson. Rt Hon Reginald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cartwright, John
Freud, Clement
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Litterlck, Tom


Clemitson, Ivor
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Loyden, Eddie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
George, Bruce
Luard, Evan


Cohen, Stanley
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Coleman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Conlan, Bernard
Gould, Bryan
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gourlay, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Corbett, Robin
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacCormick, Iain


Cowans, Harry
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McCusker, H.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grocott, Bruce
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McElhone, Frank


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
MacFarcuhar, Roderick


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregot


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maclennan, Robert




McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Madden, Max
Reid, George
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thempson, George


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tierney, Sydney


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tilley, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tomlinson, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Torney, Tom


Meacher, Michael
Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mellish, Hon Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rowlands, Ted
Ward, Michael


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Rlyman, John
Watkins, David


Molloy, William
Sandelson, Neville
Watt, Hamish


Molyneaux, James
Sedgemore, Brian
Weetch, Ken


Moonman, Eric
Sever, John
Weitzman, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
White, James (Pollok)


Newens, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Noble, Mike
Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Gordon
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ogden, Eric
Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


O'Haltoran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Orbach, Maurice
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Palmer, Arthur
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Park, George
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parker, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Stoddart, David
Woodall, Alec


Pavitt, Laurie
Stott, Roger
Woof, Robert


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Penhah'son, David
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Perry, Ernest
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)
Mr. Ted Graham.


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorst, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Alison, Michael
Cope, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Arnold, Tom
Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths. Eldon


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Crouch, David
Grist, Ian


Baker, Kenneth
Crowder, F. P.
Grylls, Michael


Banks, Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bell, Ronald
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hannam, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dunlop, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bitten. John
Durant, Tony
Haselhurat, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh
Hastings, Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Body, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bottomley, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Heseltine, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Farr, John
Hicks, Robert


Boyson. Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fell, Anthony
Higgins, Terence L.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hodgson, Robin


Brittan, Leon
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Holland, Philip


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hordern, Peter


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brotherton, Michael
Forman, Nigel
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus
Hurd, Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter
James, David


Budgen, Nick
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Jenkln, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'.i)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Burden, F. A.
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Jopling, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Dr Alan
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Goodlad, Alastair
Kitson, Sir Timothy







Knox, David
Nelson, Anthony
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Lamont, Norman
Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Newton, Tony
Spence, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Nott, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Lawrence, Ivan
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sproat, Iain


Lawson, Nigel
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stainton, Keith


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stanley, John


Lloyd, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Loveridge, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Luce, Richard
Percival, Ian
Stokes, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Stradling Thomas, J.


McCrindle, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tapsell, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Raison, Timothy
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Mates, Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Trotter, Neville


Mather, Carol




Maude, Angus
Rhodes James, R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ridsdale, Julian
Viggers, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wakeham, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Mills, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Tim
Wells, John


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Raymond


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan, Geraint
Shepherd, Colin
Winterton, Nicholas


Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Shersby, Michael
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sims, Roger



Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


Neave, Alrey
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. John MacGregor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Clause 19

SCRUTINY OF ASSEMBLY BILLS

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 8, line 33, at end insert
("and if the Judicial Committee decides that a provision is within the legislative competence of the Assembly or is so compatible the decision shall be binding in all legal proceedings.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out 'or is so compatible'.

Question put forthwith and agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 40, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 8, line 14, after ("Assembly") insert
("or is not compatible with any enforceable Community right, power, liability, obligation or restriction (as defined in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972)")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 234.

Division No. 250]
AYES
[9.17 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Bates, Alf
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bean, R. E.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Bradford, Rev Robert


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Bradley, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Blenklnsop, Arthur
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Boardman, H.
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)




Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Reid, George


Carmichael, Neil
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cartwright, John
Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn


Clemitson, Ivor
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rose, Paul B.


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ryman, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Sever, John


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kilfedder, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Litterick, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Deakins, Eric
Luard, Evan
Stallard, A. W.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Dormand, J. D.
MacCormlck, Iain
Stott, Roger


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCusker, H.
Strang, Gavin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Dunlop, John
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunn, James A.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Swain, Thomas


Dunnett, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Edge, Geoff
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


English, Michael
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mahon, Simon
Thompson, George


Evans,loan (Aberdare)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tiley, John


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomlinson, John


Fletcher, L R. (Ilkeston)
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Foot Rt Hon Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Forrester, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Ward, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Molloy, William
Watkins, David


Freud, Clement
Molyneaux, James
Watt, Hamish


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Moonman, Eric
Weetch, Ken


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wellbeloved, James


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
Welsh, Andrew


Ginsburg, David
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Gould, Bryan
Newens, Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike
Whitlock, William


Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Park, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Parker, John
Woodall, Alec


Heller, Eric S.
Parry, Robert
Woof, Robert


Henderson, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Horam, John
Penhaligon, David



Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Perry, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Ted Graham and


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Joseph Dean.


Huckfield, Les









NOES


Adley, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon
Newton, Tony


Alison, Michael
Grist, Ian
Nott, John


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spellhorne)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Baker, Kenneth
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parkinson, Cecil


Banks, Robert
Hampson. Dr Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Hannam, John
Percival, Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Haselhurst, Alan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Benyon, W.
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pym, fit Hon Francis


Bitten, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Rathbone, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Heseitine, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bottomley, Peter
Hodgson, Robin
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Holland, Philip
Rhodes James, R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hurd, Douglas
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brotherton, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
James, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Sainsbury, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buck, Antony
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Budgen, Nick
Jopling, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bulmer, Esmond
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shepherd, Colin


Burden, F. A.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shersby, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Fred


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sims, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Churchill, W. S.
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamont, Norman
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


Cope,John
Lawson, Nigel
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Cormack, Patrick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Crowder, F. P.
Loveridge, John
Stanley, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCrindie, Robert
Stokes, John


Drayson, Burnaby
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Tapsell, Peter


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)



Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter




Thatcher Rt Hon Margarat


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil



Farr John
Mates, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fell, Anthony
Mather, Carol
Townsend, Cyril D.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Trotter, Neville


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Whitney, Raymond


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan, Geraint
Wiggin, Jerry


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Gorst, John
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Jim Lester and


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Gray, Hamish
Neubert, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Lords amendments nos. 31, 33, 36 and 38 disagreed to.

Lord amendments nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37 and 39 agreed to.

Clause 20

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Lords amendment: No. 41.

divide Clause 20 into two Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) and (2) and (4) to (10) and the second consisting of subsection (11).

Read a Second time.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out 'subsection (11)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (11)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment to amendment no. 41 we may also take Lords amendments nos. 42 and 46.

Mr. John Smith: Clause 20 originally consisted of subsections (1) to (11) and Lords amendment no. 249 in the Lords Committee divided into two clauses, the second consisting of subsections (3) and (11). On Third Reading, an amendment—no. 42—omitted the first subsection from the second of the two clauses which resulted from dividing clause 20.
As the Bill left the other place, the second clause no longer comprised two subsections. Accordingly, the amendment to divide clause 20—no. 41—was adjusted to refer to subsection (11) of clause 20 rather than subsections (3) and (11), subsection (3) being no longer in the Bill. It is now necessary to reinsert the reference to subsection (3).
Turning to Lords amendment no. 42, its effect relates to the prerogative. It is a detailed subject, and perhaps I can put it as briefly as I can to the House.
In our submission, the amendments which another place has made effect a major change in the structure of the Bill. The consequence would be a substantial loss of executive power as the Bill would devolve it—a loss perhaps unintended by the mover of the amendment in another place. The noble Lord who move the amendment in another place suggested a

method of making the loss good, but we believe that that method is undesirable.
The Bill as it left the Commons devolved Her Majesty's prerogative and other executive powers exercisable by Ministers as these related to devolved matters in Scotland. There are very few genuine instances of prerogative power in the areas of domestic policy which are the main components of devolved matters.
In response to the debate in Committee in another place, the Government indicated their readiness to take a Report stage amendment deleting the explicit reference to prerogative powers. The concept of executive power would in any event include those executive powers which derive from the prerogative. However, on Third Reading in another place the Opposition went further by proposing the devolution not of executive powers but of statutory powers only. The position finally arrived at in the Bill as it stands is we believe constitutionally impure because the prerogative is not capable of being devolved by statute.
Perhaps I might paraphrase the argument in another place. The prerogative is the residue of the absolute power of the mediaeval monarch. It has been progressively controlled and restricted by the common law. The principal weapon of the common law is the doctrine that, wherever prerogative power is converted or subsumed into statutory power, it is to that extent put into abeyance.
The Bill purports to dispose of prerogative powers in relation to devolved matters in Scotland and it is said that in so doing it automatically converts those powers into statute. We believe that this view rests on a misconception. Certainly it is true that when statute subsumes any part of the prerogative, that part ceases to be exercisable. But the Bill does not subsume. It simply specifies who is to exercise the prerogative in relation to certain matters. The substantive content of the prerogative is left untouched.
The view advanced in another place involves what the irreverent have called the Midas theory—when Parliament touches the prerogative, it turns from prerogative into statute. However, this ignores the distinction between subsuming and transferring and ignores the sovereignty of Parliament and its capacity


to displace the common law. Parliament's obvious intention would be frustrated if the Midas theory operated. It also ignores the fact that ministerial powers, prerogative and other, are regularly transferred by transfer of functions orders under the Minister of the Crown Act 1975 and its ancestor. No one has ever suggested that prerogative powers are incapable of surviving the transfer.
There is another basic point of misunderstanding. It has been suggested that all ministerial powers derive from statute or from the prerogative. This ignores the general executive capacity which Ministers possess—a capacity which is nothing to do with the prerogative, but which derives from the Crown's right to do anything which a private individual can do. It is in no sense a substitute for legislation and it imports no power to spend money, but it does cover the multitude of ministerial executive acts which take place every day. It is relied on for giving advice to the public, for setting up advisory bodies, for encouraging pilot schemes in advance of legislation, and for managing whole areas of activity such as sport and the arts. If Scottish Secretaries were cut back to statutory powers, they would suffer a loss of capacity.
The remedy proposed was that Her Majesty, using any of the variety of formal instruments available to her, should devolve prerogative powers as and when occasion may demand. This is a breathtaking piece of academism. It contemplates that a Scottish Secretary, when wanting to act outside the range of specific statutory powers, would first have to ask the Secretary of State to ask the Palace to prepare and issue an instrument conferring on the Scottish Secretary so much of the prerogative as was needed.
But what is wanted for Scottish Secretaries is not bits of the prerogative, which have no real relevance to devolved matters, but the general executive capacity. What is more, the suggestion would open the door to a most implausible and unwelcome form of devolution, namely, creeping devolution by Royal dictate. This may overcome the constitutional doubts of the Opposition in another place as to the prerogative, but it is remarkable that it has not occurred to them how

much criticism there would be of creeping devolution taking place outside the Bill.

Mr. Timothy Raison: In the Wales Bill there is no general transfer of the total executive or prerogative power. It is transferred only in relation to matters specifically set out in the statute. Would that be impossible in this Bill?

Mr. Smith: The difference between the two Bills is that there are no legislative powers in the Wales Bill. The matter is dealt with in clause 26 of the Wales Bill, which provides supplementary powers.
We believe that the amendments would not help the structure of the Bill and would include a diminution of the powers that are intended to be devolved to Scottish Secretaries. We believe that the amendments are undesirable.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman has been equipped with an interesting piece of constitutional doctrine, but whether it will survive the scrutiny of the House is another matter. It seems that behind the bland words there are real problems.
The problem which arises and has led to this apparently arcane discussion on constitutional niceties is the unique feature of the arrangements proposed in the Bill—namely, that the powers of prerogative are exercisable by those who do not have access to the Crown. That is the fundamental feature of the whole arrangement.
It is curious that although the issue was raised on exactly those terms in the debates in another place, the Minister, while equipped with a marvellous brief dealing with the constitutional niceties, has studiously avoided addressing himself to the problem. The difficulties in which the Government find themselves and their need to table an amendment to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment derive from the fact that a scheme of devolution is included in which powers are exercised—prerogative powers at that—by those who do not have access to the Crown. That is what is so strange.
The Government were at pains in another place to say that they did not want any sort of governor-general arrangement whereby access to the Crown will be conferred on a particular figure and a means will be achieved to secure the


more normal sort of access to the Crown. Instead of that, we have the conferment of prerogative powers by clause 23.
The Government say that the Midas theory is to be denounced and is a lot of rubbish and that the mere fact that the prerogative powers is mentioned in a statute does not mean that the power is pared down in any way or confined to the limits of the statute. That theory is thrown out. Yet, for all that, the Government propose an amendment deleting the words "prerogative and other". If the Government's amendment is accepted, we are left with the following:
Such of Her Majesty's executive powers as would otherwise be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Minister of the Crown shall, if they relate to devolved matters and are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Scottish Secretary.
What has happened to the prerogative powers that the Government originally thought should be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty in Scotland by a Scottish Secretary? Are the Government proposing in technical language that the actual powers of the Scottish Secretary should be less than envisaged in the original Bill? Is that what is proposed when previously the idea was that he should have the prerogative powers? If that is so, the Government are proposing a substantial diminution of the power of the Scottish Secretary. What is it that has persuaded them to come to that conclusion? We have not had an explanation of that. Nor have we had a satisfactory explanation of the difference between
prerogative and other executive powers".
The distinction that the Minister sought to make is unsupported by any authority. He has given an ex cathedra pronouncement that the executive power—

Mr. John Smith: I do not have a cathedra.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman objects. Surely he has a cathedra to be exed. It is called the Privy Council Office, and a pretty good cathedra it is too. Be that as it may, whether it is ex cathedra or in cathedra it is purported to be authoritative. However, the right hon. Gentleman has no authority for it other than his say-so.
I am always ready to learn, but I have not learnt yet by what constitutional

authority we are told that the executive power is different from the prerogative power and that it is the right of Ministers to do something that any private individual may do. In other words, it is not that the Minister has powers that ordinary individuals have but has the right to do things that ordinary individuals may do. That does not solve the problem.
Ministers are not ordinary individuals. They are either the creatures of statute or in some sense people who exercise the prerogative. Therefore, the mere fact that they are not doing something which private individuals are not able to do does not in my view, subject to any authoritative correction, mean that they are not exercising the prerogative power. I am much comforted by a nod from a much wiser head than mine—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Raison: I am not sure whether a layman's view will be of much comfort to someone like my hon. and learned Friend. But I refer him to another cathedra, Dicey, who said:
Every act which the Executive Government can lawfully do without the authority of the Act of Paliament is done by virtue of the prerogative.

Mr. Brittan: Whether I take comfort from my hon. Friend direct or from the even more authoritative source of Dicey seems to me to be something from which I can take comfort.
The fact is that the distinction drawn by the Minister between the prerogative and the executive seems to be unsupported. It is not supported by Dicey. Therefore, by removing "prerogative" and leaving "executive powers", I suggest that the Government are on very dangerous ground. If the matter is challenged in the courts, it might be found that on that language the precise ambiance of the powers of a Scottish Secretary, in so far as they are not derived from statute, is very uncertain.
Therefore, although the Minister pooh-poohs that on the one hand and on the other hand decries as being medieval mumbo-jumbo the other methods suggested in another place for the conferring of the prerogative power, it may be that, by confining a Scottish Secretary to


the executive power, the right hon. Gentleman will achieve by a back door the same result as the House of Lords wished to achieve by the front door. He may find that if a Scottish Secretary is safely to have these powers, it is necessary that they be conferred on an ad hoc basis by Orders in Council, Royal instructions, proclamations or letters patent, as the case may be, which were the methods suggested in another place for conferring the prerogative powers.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Brittan: If I may finish one more sentence, I shall then give way to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). To present it in some way as if it is a question of going to the palace and therefore involving the monarchy directly seems to be doing less than justice to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the constitution. As he knows, an Order in Council is not dreamt up in the palace; it is issued on the advice of Ministers just as much as any other kind of instrument conferring such powers as these.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I should like to make one further point, and then I shall indeed give way to the hon. Gentleman. If I undertake to do so, I shall abide by that undertaking.
Indeed, an alternative approach was suggested in another place—namely, under section 61 of the Australia Act. I shall not go into that now, but it was referred to in another place.
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman, by proposing this amendment, has not solved the problem. If anything, he has made it worse. The problem is caused by the structure of the Bill. It certainly is not solved by the language of the Bill or by the amendment. I am not suggesting that the Lords amendment provides a happy answer, because within the structure of prerogative powers conferred on people who do not have access to the Crown I am not sure that the problem is capable of solution. However, I certainly prefer what their Lordships have done to what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. I give way at this point to the hon. Member for West Lothian.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to challenge in the courts. How would one go about a challenge in the courts, and which courts in this instance?

Mr. Brittan: I understand that a Scottish Secretary would have to take some action to which an individual in Scotland objected. In taking that action he would be purporting to do so not by virtue of any statute but by virtue of what are described in the Bill—if the Government's amendment is carried—as
other executive powers as would otherwise be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Minister of the Crown".
The first question that would arise would be whether the individual who objected had standing to make such an objection. That would be determined by whether it affected him more than it affected the public at large. I think that those would be the considerations, but I do not say this with any confidence because it is difficult to do so without looking matters up.
We have asked where the matter would be raised. I think that it would be raised in the Court of Session. One assumes that this would be an act done in Scotland. Therefore, there would be some means whereby such an individual would have access to the Court of Session and would seek relief, claiming either to quash the action taken by the Scottish Secretary as being ulta vires or to have it declared ultra vires by the Court of Session and, subsequently on appeal, as being an act which is exercisable solely under clause 20(3) of the Scotland Bill. The court would have to decide whether that was so. That is the way in which I think the matter would come before the court.
We support the Lords amendment, although we support it uneasily. The Government are buying themselves trouble. I do not believe, if there is a conflict between an individual and the Scottish Secretary about whether the powers have been exercised properly, that the use of the words "executive powers", in the absence of the prerogative, gives clear guidance to the courts about what the Scottish Secretary might or might not do.
Perhaps I can be persuaded during the debate that my anxieties are unreal. So far, however, the Minister of State has


not persuaded me, and I doubt whether he has persuaded many of my hon. Friends.
The House of Lords examined the matter on a number of occasions. In spite of all the Government's blandishments, at a late stage, Members of the House of Lords, including many who are better versed in these matters than I can pretend to be, passed their amendment. With great reluctance I would disagree with that amendment, but not on the basis of the arguments advanced by the Government.

Sir David Renton: I hope that I shall not be accused of unnecessarily taking up time if I begin by taking the first opportunity that I have had of congratulating the Minister of State on his admission to the Privy Council. It is a well deserved tribute to the work which he has done, often single handed, on these difficult devolution Bills.
Clause 20(3) is neither constitutionally sound nor necessary to the purpose of the Bill. I do not consider that leaving out the words "prerogative and other" substantially lessens the constitutional difficulty.
I remind the House that all sovereignty in this country originally derived from the Crown. As the Minister of State said in his ex cathedra statement—read rather faster than such statements should be read, because they should be read slowly and solemnly when they deal with such important matters—sovereignty is derived from the Crown. Originally it was a sovereignty in executive, legislative and even judicial matters.
Strangely enough, the first element in that sovereignty which the Crown voluntarily surrendered was before we ever had a Parliament, and it was in judicial matters. Indeed, the Plantagenet kings acknowledged that they should never again try to sit in judgment. The last king who wanted to do so was King James I of England—King James VI of Scotland—but he was talked out of it by the judges of the day, and I believe that he did not succeed in sitting judicially. That was an element of sovereignty which was surrendered but for the appointment of judges; to that extent, the Crown still retains a prerogative in judicial matters, but I think only to that extent. There is the prerogative of

mercy, of course, which could also be said to relate to judicial matters, but is an executive act.
The legislative sovereignty which Parliament has is, as I say, derived from the Crown. It was surrendered by the Crown sometimes because Parliament took it a bit forcibly and at other times the Crown was persuaded to surrender it voluntarily, and that process still goes on. But when we come to executive matters, it was simply the exercise of the prerogative in that respect. If the right hon. Gentleman, by referring again to the words in the subsection, could tell us what is the difference between prerogative in executive matters and the exercise of the Crown's executive power, it would be very interesting to know the answer. I do not think that he can tell us the difference. I do not think that there is a difference. In the context to which he refers, in subsectian (3), it can only be the exercise of the prerogative in executive matters. That is really what we are talking about. Therefore, when he is left with the words:
Such of Her Majesty's…executive powers as would otherwise be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Minister".
he is really still referring, I submit, to the exercise of the prerogative. Either some of those words were otiose and unnecessary when they were first put in and made no difference at all, or the right hon. Gentleman must describe what the difference between "prerogative" and "executive" comes to in this context.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) pointed out, we need to be very careful when we talk about transferring to somebody other than Her Majesty's Ministers the exercise of prerogative powers on her behalf, because that is what we are doing here. Parliament gives various kinds of powers to all kinds of people who are not Ministers. We give powers, for example, to the head of a nationalised industry, or to the controlling board of a nationalised industry, but we do so by specifying in the appropriate statute exactly what powers are being given by Parliament.
I should be glad to know of a precedent for any case in which within the United Kingdom we have adopted a formula of this kind, unless it be in a statute establishing the independence of a


new country, and then we recognise that new sovereignty is being created. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of a precedent, I should be glad to give way, so that I might comment on it.

Mr. John Smith: Subsections (2) and (3) of section 7 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 provided for Her Majesty to delegate
prerogative or other executive powers".
I am not saying that the circumstances are precisely identical, but the words were used in that statute.

10.0 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: The words were used, but in a different context from that in the Bill. In the case of Northern Ireland the exercise of those powers is a matter for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to answer to this House. In the case of the Bill, the Government have been saying all along that, although we are still to have a Secretary of State for Scotland—who will have many residual powers, as we were trying to point out in such time as we had in Committee—there are other powers which are devolved to the Scottish Executive and which can be exercised by a Scottish Secretary. Therefore, the example of Northern Ireland, quoted merely because the same words are used in a different context, is not a precedent upon which the right hon. Gentleman can ask the House to rely.
One could go on explaining the constitutional position that arises, but is the subsection really necessary for the Bill? I ask the House to consider the clause without subsection (3). Subsections (1) and (2) are unimpaired. If right hon. and hon. Members glance down the remaining subsections, they will find that the only further reference to subsection (3) is in subsection (11). On a different group of amendments we shall discuss subsection (11) as a separate issue, and I do not

wish to take up time by anticipating that discussion, for which I hope we shall have time.
Admittedly, however, there is also a reference in subsection (9) to
powers mentioned in subsection (3)",
but we could perfectly well have the powers mentioned in subsection (9), which are powers to appoint
such officers and servants as he
—a Scottish Secretary—
may think appropriate",
without giving him the very wide powers, which are essentially prerogative powers as expressed, mentioned in subsection (3).
I agree that in order to make thoroughly the case that the Government do not need subsection (3) it would be necessary for me to refer to many other provisions of the Bill, and there is not time to do so. I merely ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider with his usual care whether he really needs that subsection, which in this context is unprecedented. Bearing in mind the good work that the Lords have done on this subsection and other parts of the Bill, I think that it would be as well to do without it and to accept the Lords amendment.
We are discussing an example of some of the excellent work done in another place. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement. It is work which goes far beyond what we ordinarily understand by "revision". "Revision" is the revision of drafting, the improvement of detail, however important the detail may be. But what the Lords have done is to perform a valuable public service, especially to the people of Scotland, by giving this House the chance of reconsideration, of second thoughts. It not only gives us the chance but places upon us the duty to use that opportunity as wisely as we can. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: In the temporary and fleeting absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I can speak for the unanimous opinion of the Labour Back Benchers present, because it must be the unanimous opinion of the Labour Back Benchers present that on this matter the Lords did indeed, as with many other subjects, work extremely hard. I happened to hear their Lordships' debate. Having gone through all the days here in the House of Commons, I had not, once again, realised precisely what was involved until I heard the Lords debate. This is just yet another manhole, because the truth is that this is not an esoteric problem.
The Minister of State used the striking phrase "creeping devolution by Royal diktat". I hasten to assure him that, whatever my other shortcomings, I am not in favour of that. I am bound to say that we may get creeping devolution until everything that distinguishes creeping devolution from a separate State actually disappears. I think that this is a very important matter because it involves all sorts of subjects, not only sport and the arts but the setting up of all kinds of Royal Commissions of inquiry. This is in fact a very important part of Government.
Because of time reasons, I put my remarks in question form. Before I do so, I think it is fair to remark that among those who voted for the Lords amendments—though I think he voted on very few other matters in relation to the devolution Bill—was Lord Adeane, who, as Sir Michael Adeane, was the Queen's private secretary. I think that it is a bit significant that the Queen's former private secretary, who frankly has eschewed party matters over the years and, I think, intends to continue to do so, should on this matter feel it so worth his while to come and cast—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to echo a word of caution that we never bring Her Majesty into our arguments in this place.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask, first of all, whether the amendments put forward create considerable doubt about the extent to which Scottish Secretaries could initiate new policies. Do they radically change the scheme of the Bill, which is based on the devolution of powers in relation to

matters? That is central to the whole scheme of the Bill.
These are questions arising from assertions by the one noble Lord whom I gather I can quote. It was Lord McCluskey, as reported at column 938.
My second question is this. Is there any other statute or provision in any part of this country or the Commonwealth in respect of which the powers of the prerogative are exercisable by people who do not have access either to the Crown or in colonies or dominions to the governor or governor-general, who is the Crown's representative in those territories? Are Scottish Secretaries to have no direct access to the Crown, and are they therefore in a position to advise the Queen, and can they do so, if at all, at second hand?
If Parliament provides this, does it not help the courts to say that it is the extent of the provision that Parliament has made when it is done in this way, which is wholly unique in the history of our constitutional legislation? I put that in question form.
I also ask whether, in relation to the long example that was given in the other place concerning a tanker on its way to Rosyth, if it went aground in the Forth estuary—this is the long example with which the Minister of State is very familiar—these decisions on the prerogative would not in cases such as the tanker going aground in the Forth, lead to inordinate delay and difficulty in relation to litigation.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), will realise that this is a practical example for our constituencies of what could happen. If, indeed, this example is misplaced, if decisions could be taken without delay by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office in this kind of example, we should be told. The reply in the other place did not convince me that this was not an example of the kind of difficulty that could occur.
Time rolls on. There are others who wish to speak in the debate. I shall leave an otherwise longer speech at that.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I


probably share a certain diffidence about entering into this rather technical debate, which so far has been dominated by the Minister and some hon. and learned Members. However, one or two further points ought to be made.
First, I echo what has been said about the thoroughness of the discussion on this matter in the other place. I confess that I was rather tickled to discover one debate there in which Lord Kirkhill, who replied on behalf of the Government, began his speech by ticking off some other noble Lords for speaking irrelevantly but then had to admit that he was answering the wrong amendment.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps what was even more surprising was that the Opposition Front Bench did not even notice it.

Mr. Raison: The Minister is, as ever, diligent in his scrutiny.

Mr. Dalyell: I was present on that occasion. Is it not also a fact that it is only very able criminal lawyers who can cope with this Bill at all in either House?

Mr. Raison: I made the point to the Minister that I was in order referring to the speech of Lord Kirkhill because it was a ministerial speech, but the Minister was out of order in referring to the other speeches because they were not ministerial speeches.
However, I come to the point at issue. It seems to me that the Minister owes us an explanation of the reason for the Government's moving of an amendment to leave out "prerogative and other" My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made this point. Unless I misheard the Minister, it was a rather strange omission from his speech. After all, it shows that the Government apparently accept —although this is very uncertain—that there is some sort of distinction between prerogative and other powers. At any rate, the Government have recognised that there is a point on which their original thinking was wrong. We have not had an explanation from the Minister of why the Government have been prepared to make this concession. Whether it is simply a concession in order to get the thing through with a minimum of fuss or

whether there has been some serious thinking on the part of the Government is something that the Minister ought to explain.
As I said earlier, we have the view of Dicey that every act which the Executive can lawfully do without the authority of the Act of Parliament is done by virtue of the prerogative. In other words, Dicey apparently did not allow that there could be any Executive act other than one done under the prerogative. Therefore, the House is entitled to some explanation of that.
The only other point I want to raise with the Minister is one that I do not think has been raised previously. Would the powers which the Government envisage as being devolved to the Scottish Secretary, a member of the Scottish Executive, still be, as it were, concurrently exercisable by the Secretary of State, or would those powers simply be handed over, implying a relinquishment of those powers on the part of the Secretary of State?
As the House may remember, one of the odd things about the legislative aspects of devolution is that although it is the Government's wish and intention that legislation on devolved matters should be confined to the Scottish Assembly, nevertheless I think it has been established quite clearly that the House of Commons will still have the power to legislate on anything under the sun. In other words, if the House of Commons wishes to legislate about education, housing, health or any other matter in Scotland, it is perfectly entitled to do so.
I give a more concrete example, perhaps, of how this might happen. If I were to win a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills and if I brought forward a Private Member's Bill saying, for example, that I wished to abolish corporal punishment throughout the United Kingdom, I could put in my Bill "This Bill applies to Scotland just as much as to England." As I see it, there would be nothing to stop me from doing so. There would be no power to prevent that.
However, in this debate we are talking not about legislation but about executive-type acts. What I am asking is whether the Government's proposal is that the executive powers are, as it were, to be


exercised exclusively by the Scottish Secretary or whether they will still remain to be exercised concurrently by the Secretary of State. The answer to this must be that they will remain to be exercised concurrently by the Secretary of State.
It may be argued that I am being rather pernickety—I do not know. I dare say that the Minister will make the point. But let us take some examples—first, the question of corporal punishment—without commenting on the merits of the case.
10.15 p.m.
The Government of the United Kingdom could come under some kind of legal pressure from the European Court and could take it on board. I think it is true to say that, if the European Court or some other international obligation required us to abolish corporal punishment, it would have to be done; there would be no question about it. Before that happened, however, there could well be what one might call executive deliberations, considerations, or negotiations to be carried out. If they related to corporal punishment within Scotland, would they be can-led out by the Secretary of State on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, dealing with this other alien power, or would they be carried out by a member of the Scottish Executive? That is an example of the kind of area in which I should like to have a clear picture of what the Government have in mind.
But there are also areas where certain powers are devolved while others are not but which may be said nevertheless to constitute a totality. This is true of agriculture. Some of the powers over agriculture are to be devolved to the Assembly whereas other powers remain with the United Kingdom Government. Let us suppose that it was decided to set up a committee of inquiry. Such committees have been used on a number of occasions as examples of executive actions that are not, as it were, set up by statute but derive from the kind of executive power that we are talking about.
Would it be possible for the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whoever else, in the central Government to set up a committee of inquiry into agriculture which would embrace both the developed aspects of agriculture and those which remained with the central Government? Clearly,

it could be stupid in practice to make that kind of separation. Agriculture is, indeed, a good example of where the whole scheme is nonsensical.
I take another example—education. On the whole, education is to be devolved to Scotland—the schools, and so on—but the universities remain with the United Kingdom Government. I think that is sensible, and I am pleased that the universities are to remain with the United Kingdom Government.
But it might well be that someone concerned with the whole pattern of education, with the way in which we are responding to the requirements of industry, or the way in which the link between schools and the universities is operating, says "These are not matters which can be looked at in isolation. We must have an inquiry able to look at both schools and universities." It may well be, therefore, that the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Westminster Government, thinks it appropriate to have an inquiry into the matter. Would he have the power to do it, or is the whole business of dealing with schools in Scotland exclusively transferred to the Scottish Administration?
I do not know the answer to these points. I believe that these are the kinds of issue that will inescapably crop up if this absurd devolution scheme goes through. They are among the areas of friction that we have pointed out time and time again in these debates as being liable to occur, and at the very least we can ask the Minister of State for an explanation.

Mr. Powell: I should be grateful if the Minister of State would refer to three points of difference which may be illuminating between this clause and section 7 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, to which he referred the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) as a partial precedent.
The three points are these. It appears that in the Bill the powers in question are exercisable by a Scottish Secretary—that is to say, they do not have to be exercised by a Scottish Secretary, so presumably they can be concurrently exercised or alternatively exercised by the Secretary of State—whereas in the corresponding, or not corresponding, section of the 1973 Act they have to be exercised through members of the Northern Ireland Executive.
The second point is that in the 1973 Act the powers are still retained, in effect, by the Secretary of State. He uses the Executive as an agency but the powers are exercised in law by the Secretary of State. The third point is that the powers in question are in that Act qualified "as such as are delegated to him by Her Majesty". This implies a further limitation other than that they must relate to transferred matters.
Obviously, all this is fairly novel constitutional ground, and inquisitiveness is naturally raised when we find substantial differences between the two devolution measures. In asking this question I do not mean to imply that I hope that the torpor into which the 1973 Northern Ireland Constitution Act has fallen, mesmerised by the 1974 Act, will ever be disturbed. I hope that it will not be. Nevertheless, from a constitutional point of view and as a means of throwing light upon what is here being discussed in respect of Scotland, its provisions are of interest.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for his characteristically generous remarks about myself. I appreciate his kindness in thinking about me and the way in which he expressed himself. In addition to his courtesy and generosity, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a capacity for asking some extremely penetrating questions. I shall do my best to answer them and the points which were touched upon by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan).
Before turning to these matters, may I say that I agree with the comment made by the right hon. and learned Member about the way in which the other place dealt with some parts of the Bill. I cannot confer general approval upon everything that it did or all the priorities that it chose for examination. On certain aspects of the Bill, however, especially on the constitutional mechanisms and some of the legal parts of this measure, a very thorough examination was made, to the benefit of all concerned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I say that it would have been quite possible for us in this House to have done the same task. The House of Lords, in its Committee

stage, took one day less than we did and covered a great deal more territory than was covered here under the guillotine.
It is a fair point to make that the House of Lords managed to discuss some things which this House did not. The House well knows that our time in Committee was not taken up by supporters of the Government. It was mainly taken up by the Government's critics. We could very well have selected some of these matters for closer discussion.

Mr. Britton: The right hon. Gentleman repeatedly raises this canard, and it is time that it was laid.

Mr. Smith: It cannot be.

Mr. Britton: It can be laid. I am about to do it. Of course, the House of Lords considered matters that were not considered here. If we had spent our time considering those matters, we would not have considered the matters that we did and the House of Lords would have had to consider the matters that we had not dealt with. It is absurd to say that because, after exhaustive consideration in this House, the other place took slightly less time considering different matters, in some sense our time was wasted. That is an unworthy argument and it is time that it was put to rest.

Mr. Smith: If the hon. and learned Member thinks that that puts the matter to rest, he has too low a standard of self-satisfaction. The point is that if we look at how the House of Lords considered matters, especially during its Committee stage on the Bill, it will be seen that it covered many more matters in greater depth than was done here. It is regrettable that that should be so. The responsibility for that lies not with the Government but with the Opposition, whose job it is to criticise. What is more, the accusation was made that the guillotine which had been imposed was unnecessarily restrictive of debate and, therefore, the House could not possibly deal with the matter quickly.

Mr. Britton: Deal with the amendment.

Mr. Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman has intervened, and one of the consequences of being in a free Parliament is that if an hon. Member intervenes


to ask a question he has to listen to the answer. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the House of Lords managed to cover many more things in detail than we did.
I come to the heart of the question raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. This concerned the distinction between prerogative powers, and executive powers, including executive powers of a prerogative character. I think that the right hon. and learned Member is quite right. It is extremely hard to draw a distinction between the two, and these were the considerations which led to the Government's abandoning the phrase "prerogative and other" in another place, as incorporated now in the amendment before the House for debate.
I think, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman hit the nub of the point in that respect. There are very few genuine instances of prerogative power in the area covered by devolved matters. But I think that the distinction which was eventually decided upon was too fine to be supported—that is, the distinction between the two matters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised—and the Government themselves, therefore proposed an amendment in another place.
I therefore take the implied criticism behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument—namely, that perhaps we might do better if we had not had these words in the Bill in the first place. But that is what Parliament is for—to make criticisms—and it is for Ministers to reach decisions in the light of criticism. I think that, if only marginally, the Government might be given a little credit rather than criticism for having made that amendment.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to argue, as did the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby, I think, that we do not need subsection (3) at all. With great respect, differ from him fundamentally about that. In our view, there are a substantial number of powers of an executive character which Ministers have which it would be wise to give to Secretaries in the Scottish Administration. The important distinction here, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) correctly said, is that these powers are not exercisable by the Sovereign. They are powers

which will be exercisable by the Scottish Secretary. This, if I may say so, is part of the answer to the question on access, which the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby raised and to which he has previously referred.
With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that that is a red herring, because the Scottish Secretaries will be creatures of statute, and the statute will not confer rights of access. The fact that they have no rights of access, as we all agree they do not, does not prevent them from exercising power of a prerogative character. I think that the error lies in believing that the exercise of prerogative power involves the necessity of the Crown acting itself and having to be advised—on the advice, presumably, of a Scottish Secretary. That does not happen. The Crown does not exercise the power itself. The power is exercised by a Scottish Secretary. That is the other side of the argument on the question of access.
I quite accept that the concept of a general executive capacity, which is really the justification for having subsection (3) in the Bill at all, is fairly nebulous. It does not appear to have been one which was current in Dicey's day. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) rested heavily, I think, on an extract from Dicey's "Law of the Constitution". Nevertheless, we believe that it is firmly embedded in modern constitutional doctrine, and this is indicated by the practices of Governments of all shades of political opinion.
I believe that the detailed consideration which has been given to this matter, first in another place and then in this House as a result of the amendment brought before us for consideration, has been valuable. We thought that it was an important matter for the House to discuss, and we took steps in the arrangement of the timetable motion to do the best we could to ensure that it had discussion through the way in which matters were organised on the previous set of amendments. I hope that the House will accept that the subject has had a very good airing.
I see the hon. Member for Aylesbury indicating that he would like an answer to a point which he raised. I think that he is correct, and I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South is correct. I did not disagree with any of the points


which he made. I confess that I have not made a close study of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973 and compared it with the provisions of the Bill, but, as the right hon. Gentleman spoke, I could not find any fault, from my limited knowledge of the matter, in the distinctions which he drew between the Bill and that Act. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire sought to make clear to him that I was not relying on it. He merely asked whether there was another example. I make no more of it save just to give the reference. The words were used in the other Act.
We have not time to go into a long analysis about that, but I think that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is correct in saying that the powers are exercisable by a Scottish Secretary. They are given to the Scottish Secretary. I suppose that it is technically possible that they could be exercised by—in fact, they are retained by—another Minister, in the same way as

this House retains a legislative capacity even over devolved matters, although I think that it is a little fanciful to think that the House of Commons will intervene in these matters.

On this amendment, as on every other, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) brought in his manhole problem—opening a manhole and finding even more horrific monsters underneath. It is interesting that he finds that on every conceivable occasion, and I feel that the answer must be that his general aversion to devolution is so great that, rather than—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 258.

Division No. 251]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Cowans, Harry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr Johr


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan


Armstrong, Ernest
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Jack
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Cronln, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grocott, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Davidson, Arthur
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzll
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Deakins, Eric
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bldwell, Sydney
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Henderson, Douglas


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hooley, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Boardman, H.
Dewar, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon Denis {B ham, Sm H)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Doig, Peter
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, J. D.
Huckfield, Les


Bottomtey, Rt Hon Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dully, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Hugh D. (provan)
Eadie, Alex
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Ian
Evans, John (Newton)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Caravan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
John, Brynmor


Carmlchael, Nell
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carter, Ray
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlingion)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Foot, Rt Hor Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fonoster, John
Judd, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Kilfedder, James


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lambie, David




Lamborn, Harry
Palmer, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Lamond, James
Park, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litterick, Tom
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loyden, Eddie
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Luard, Evan
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Penhaligon, David
Thompson, George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Perry, Ernest
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tierney, Sydney


McCartney, Hugh
Price, William (Rugby)
Tiley, John


MacCormick, Iain
Radlce, Giles
Tinn, James


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomlinson, John


McElhone, Frank
Reid, George
Tomney, Frank


MacFarouhar. Roderick
Richardson, Miss Jo
Torney, Tom


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwln, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McNamara, Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Madden, Max
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Magee, Bryan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Ward, Michael


Mahon, Simon
Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roper, John
Watkinson, John


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.
Watt, Hamish


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ryman, John
Weitzman, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sandelson, Neville
Wellbeloved, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sedgemore, Brian
Weish, Andrew


Meacher, Michael
Sever, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shaw, Arnold (ilford South)
White, James (Pollok)


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Whitlock, William


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Moonman, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Alfred (Wytbenshawe)
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Newens, Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woodall, Alec


Noble, Mike
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Woof, Robert


Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


O'Halloran, Michael
Stott, Roger



Orbach, Maurice
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Mr. Alf Bates and


Ovenden, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. Ted Graham.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, F. A.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Alison, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes. Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Mark
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Channon, Paul
Fox, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.


Bell, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bendall, Vivian
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cope, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cormack, Patrick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W.
Costain, A. P.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Biffen, John
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Goodhan, phillp


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Daiyell, Tam
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bottomley, Peter
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Drayson, Burnaby
Gray, Hamish


Bradford, Rev Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grieve, Percy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dunlop, John
Griffiths, Eldon


Brittan, Leon
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brotherton, Michael
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Hamilton. Michael (Salisbury)


Bryan, Sir Paul
svre Reginald
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Farr, John
Hannam, John


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Budgen, Nick
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Fisher, sir Nigel
Hastings, Stephen







Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mawby, Ray
Royle, Sir Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Tim


Hayhoe, Barney
Mayhew, Patrick
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heseltine, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter
Shepherd, Colin


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Shersby, Michael


Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger
Silvester, Fred


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Sims, Roger


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Sinclair, Sir George


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Speed, Keith


Hurd, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Spence, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


James, David
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sproat, Iain


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Jesse], Toby
Neave, Airey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Neubert, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Jopling, Michael
Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Nott, John
Stokes, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kimball, Marcus
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tapsell, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Kltson, Sir Timothy
Page, Richard (Workington)
Tebbit, Norman


Knight, Mrs Jill
Paisley, Rev Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lamont, Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Perclval, Ian
Townsend, Cyril D,


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Lawrence, Ivan
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


I swson, Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


La Marchant, Spencer
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakeham, John


Lloyd, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Luce, Richard
Rathbone, Tim
Wall, Patrick


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walters, Dennis


McCrindle, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


McCusker, H.
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Weatherill, Bernard


MacGregor, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wells, John


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rhodes James, R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wllson, P. (New Forest)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Made!, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Mates, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mather, Carol
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Jim Lester and


Maude, Angus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'clock.

Lords amendment no. 41, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 8, line 41, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question put forthwith and agreed to.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, in lieu of the Lords amendment No. 42,

in page 8, line 41, leave out 'prerogative and other'.

Question, That the amendment be made, put forthwith and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 9, line 34, at end insert
("Provided that he has obtained the consent of the First Secretary and the Minister for the Civil Service for those appointments.")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 256.

Division No. 252]
AYES
[10.46 pm


Allaun, Frank
Archer, Rt Hon peter
Ashley, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Armstrong, Ernest
Ashton, Joe




Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Halloran, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gould, Bryan
Orbach, Maurice


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George


Bates, All
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Parry, Robert


Bean, R. E.
Grocott, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pendry, Tom


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Perry, Ernest


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Blenklnsop, Arthur
Hay man, Mrs Helena
Price, William (Rugby)


Boardman, H.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Radice, Giles


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hefler, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon Meriyn (Leeds S)


Boothroyd Miss Betty
Henderson, Douglas
Reld, George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfleld, Les
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rooker, J. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Roper, John


Campbell, Ian
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rose, Paul B.


Canavan, Dennis
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rowlands, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ryman, John


Carmichael, Nell
Janner, Greville
Sandelson, Neville


Carter, Ray
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sedgemore, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jegcr, Mrs Lena
Sever, John


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Clemltson, Ivor
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptlord)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Conlan, Bernard
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Robin F. (Edln C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)


Corbett, Robin
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Kilfedder, James
Spearing, Nigel


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamborn, Harry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cronln, John
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cryer, Bob
Litterick, Tom
Stoddart, David


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Dalyell, Tarn
Luard, Evan
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Rt Hon Denzll
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Deakins, Erlc
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dempsey, James
Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, George


Dewar, Donald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tlerney, Sydney


Dolg, Peter
McNamara, Kevin
Tlley, John


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Tlnn, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Tomlinson, John


Dully, A. E. P.
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Tomney, Frank


Dunn, James A.
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Urwln, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Edge, Geoff
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walnwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Terry (Klngswood)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkinson, John


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watt, Hamlsh


Fsulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Weetch, Ken


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Molloy, William
Weitzman, David


Flannery, Martin
Moonman, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Welsh, Andrew


Foot. Pt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ford, Ben
Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
White, James (Pollok)


Forrester, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whltlock, William


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Noble, Mike
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)







Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Young, David (Bolton E)


Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Woodall, Alec



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mr. Tliomas Cox.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Alison, Michael
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Arnold, Tom
Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, Kenneth
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger


Banks, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Moiyneaux, James


Bell, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Eldon
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grist, Ian
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)
Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


BIffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peier (Chester)


Blaker, Peter
Hannam,John
Mudd, David


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Newton, Tony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Brittan, Leon
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hicks, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hlggins, Terence L.
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brotherton, Michael
Hodgson, Robin
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Allck
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hurd, Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Carlisle, Mark
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
James, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Channon, Paul
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cope, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, R.


Corrr.ack, Patrick
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crouch, David
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Drayson, Burnaby
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dunlop, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Shepherd, Colin


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Shersby, Mfchaei


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sims, Roger


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCusker, H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Forman, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hltchin)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stokes, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas. J.







Tapsell, Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Tayior, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Winterton, Nicholas


Temple-Morris, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wall, Patrick



Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Townsend, Cyril D.
Warren, Kenneth
Sir George Young and


Trotter, Neville
Weatherill, Bernard
Lord James Dounlas-Hamilton.


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 46 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 43, 44 and 47 to 54 agreed to.

Clause 26

COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: No. 55, in page 12, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")

11.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I understand that with this we shall be discussing Lords amendments nos. 56, 57, 58 and the respective amendments thereto.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Millan: These amendments relate to clause 26, which provides that the standing orders of the Assembly may include provisions for the appointment of committees.
The effect of Lords amendment no. 55 would be to make it mandatory for the Assembly to appoint committees. There was a provision in the Scotland and Wales Bill for detailed arrangements concerning the role and composition of Assembly committees, but we took the view that with the Scotland Bill it was unnecessary and an interference with the rights of the Assembly that we should lay down mandatory provisions for the establishment of committees. At the same time we included clause 26, which is a kind of steer to the Assembly in the direction of appointing committees, but it is not a mandatory requirement. I think that it would be a great pity to make this a mandatory requirement on the Assembly, because it should have as much freedom as possible to regulate its own procedures.
That is why I recommend the House not to accept Lords amendment No. 55.
Lords amendment no. 56 is consequential.
Lords amendment no. 57 provides
that no committee shall be appointed with functions not relating to devolved matters".
I think it was agreed in the debate in the other place—and I hope that it will be agreed here as well—that nothing should or, indeed, can be done to prevent the Assembly and its committees from discussing any matter they like, including non-devolved matters. This House would not be able to do anything, once the Assembly is in operation, to prevent it from discussing a non-devolved matter. It will not, of course, be able to take effective decisions on non-devolved matters, but it will often find it convenient, for example, to discuss a non-devolved matter in the context of its devolved responsibilities.
For example, on occasion the Assembly or one of its committees will certainly want to discuss North Sea oil, because it will be incidental, to put it no higher, to many of the functions for which the Assembly will be responseible. Anoher example is transport. The Assembly or one if its committees, in discussing its own transport responsibilities, may wish to discuss the relationship of British Rail, which is not a devolved responsibility, with it. own responsibilities. Therefore, I do not think that we can effectively prevent the Assembly, or one of its committees, from discussing a non-devolved matter. Indeed, I should think it very unlikely that the Assembly would wish to establish a committee to deal with non-devolved matter.
Given that kind of situation, I think it would be undesirable to write any further prohibition or restriction into the Bill. Clause 26 is at the moment a perfectly understandable simple, straightforward provision. If we add qualifications or further restrictions to that provision, I think that we shall be in danger of causing muddle and confusion.
For that reason, I do not recommend the House to accept Lords amendment no. 57.
Lords amendment no. 58 deals with the question of the party balance in committees once established. The view taken by the Government was that this again was an unnecessary provision. It is provision, which in certain circumstances might lead to difficulties. Nevertheless, Lords amendment no. 58 is expressed in fairly modest and moderate terms. It states that
the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is as closely as practicable reflected in the membership of each such committee.
It is not expressed in absolute arithmetical and mechanical terms. The Government recommend, since there is a good deal of feeling about party balance, that the House accepts Lords amendment no. 58 with the Government amendments. They involve the deletion of the words "Provided that"—a drafting amendment—and
referred to in paragraph (a) above",
which is consequential to what I have said about the other amendments that we are discussing.
I recommend that the House does not accept amendments nos. 55, 56 and 57, but I recommend that the House accepts amendment no. 58 with the Government amendments.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: We agree with a number of the points made by the Secretary of State. We take the same broad view as he on Lords amendments nos. 55 and 56. Our purpose is not to make it mandatory for the Assembly to set up committees. I understand that Stormont had only one committee—the Public Accounts Committee. That is often quoted by Labour Members as the most recent practical example of the type of Assembly that we are now considering. We except that the Assembly will want to set up committees, but that is a decision which should be within the discretion of the Assembly.
We take a different view from that of the Secretary of State on Lords amendment no. 57. That is why we want to discuss that amendment and the amendment to it. It is important to make it clear that the standing orders of the

Assembly should not allow a committee to be appointed with any functions that are not related to devolved matters. Clause 26, as amended by the Lords, does not make that clear and it could be open to incorrect interpretation. That is why we tabled our amnedment.
It has been suggested that the clause as it now stands could require a committee to be established to ensure that no functions are delegated to a committee in respect of non-devolved matters. That is not satisfactory.
Primarily we are concerned about the smooth working of the Assembly, as far at that is possible. It is obvious that the Assembly committee should not be free to consider non-devolved subjects. There are two main reasons for this. The Assembly will have a job to do. That is the purpose of the Bill, and it should not allow itself, nor should it be encouraged, to be detracted from that job by the work of its committees. It is important that such a constitutional innovation should prove itself by getting on with the job for which it is designed, particularly in its initial stage.

Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman be introducing measures to restrict local authorities from discussing wider issues beyond the immediate remit of local government?

Mr. Fletcher: I think that the hon. Gentleman, with respect, misses the point. We have spent a lot of time in these debates in the House in dealing with the complexities of the Bill that is before us, and I think that to make an analogy with local authorities is completely different. Members of the public know that if their councillors become terribly excited about Chile or some other foreign part, they have absolutely no power to deal with it. But when we have a newly set up Assembly people might easily be led to believe that they could influence or have some responsibilities for other things.
The hon. Gentleman should know that there is still considerable confusion in people's minds as to what are the duties and functions of regions as distinct from district local authorities in Scotland. We do not want to confuse the issue any more by having committees on foreign affairs, defence and other matters which are


completely outwith the responsibility and the terms of reference of the Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: Being the politician that he is, would not the hon. Gentleman be howling for committees to consider Polaris and the Holy Loch, for instance? Having his interests, would he not certainly be in favour of a committee dealing with Treasury affairs which he would think, would impinge on what he would regard as membership of the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Fletcher: The question is obviously rather hypothetical. I think that the point the hon. Gentleman is making is that if the Assembly, in order to get on with the job that is being delegated to it or devolved to it, is not to be led astray by the legislation which sets it up, or by the enthusiasms of its own Members, it is right that in the Bill restriction should be placed upon it.
I cannot anticipate what the enthusiasms of Members of the Assembly might be, but I can imagine that to some extent they might want to get involved immediately in matters which are clearly outwith their particular responsibility. We think this would be a constant and continuous threat. It would constantly be pushing against the frontiers of the legislation and trying to exaggerate the importance of the Assembly and the self-importance of its Members.
Our first objective, therefore, in the amendment is to concentrate the work of the Assembly's committees on education, on housing, on local government and so on—on the devolved subjects themselves. The committees should, after all, be the serious work horses—the engine room—of the Assembly. It is not too much to say that the reputation of the Assembly will be earned in the committees and in the practical work done there rather than in the Assembly chamber and in the general debates. After all, the Assembly will be free in its chamber to discuss matters of a much broader nature, but if the committees are to be the power house and the work horse it is important that they should be acting in such a way as to earn that reputation. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) appears to be disagreeing but, if I may say so, with the little experience he has so far he might just realise that it is in the Committees

of this House that we like to think that the serious work is done, and we should try to point the Assembly in that direction.
If the committees were to deal with non-devolved matters, this would, as I have suggested earlier, convey the impression that the Assembly has powers which it will not possess. The right hon Gentleman mentioned North Sea oil and transport. In so far as these relate to devolved matters, the Assembly is quite entitled to have committees to discuss them. But if one thinks that, because there happens to be oil off the mainland of Scotland, the Assembly should have an energy committee looking at oil resources internationally, one can imagine how this would be blown up and exaggerated as part of the power and influence of the Assembly itself. The same could be said of transport matters. There are clearly matters relating to transport in Scotland which will be devolved to the Assembly, but if the Assembly were to study transport internationally and look at things quite outside its own remit, this again would give the committees of the Assembly an exaggerated importance.
11.15 p.m.
In these circumstances it would not be difficult for misunderstandings to be created and for disagreements to he manufactured between the Assembly and Parliament. In view of all the levels of government which Scotland will have, it is particularly important that the responsibilities and functions of each level should be as clearly understood by the general public in Scotland as possible.
It is clear from my example of districts and regional authorities that there is a great deal of confusion at present. With four levels of government—five if one includes Europe—the general public will be hard pressed to know where the responsibility for a particular function lies. Therefore, it would be wrong if the Assembly were to have a completely free hand in committees. Certainly that would happen if the Assembly set up committees on defence, foreign affairs and other matters that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) might suggest.
Furthermore, if it set up these committees the Assembly would be looking for


specialist staff to man them. Presumably the existing staff who are being trans ferred from the Scottish Office would—with all due respect to them—have no particular experience in such matters as defence and foreign affairs. Clearly it would unnecessarily increase the cost of the Assembly and the bureaucracy in it if specialists were hired for this subordinate body to look into matters which are rightly the domain of Parliament.
If one is looking at the job the Assembly has to do, if one is anxious that it should not be sending committees on missions to Chile or Quebec, or perhaps to try to borrow money from the IMF, one sees that these matters of the powers of the committees are important. I hope that Labour Members will think a little about the amendment before they launch into supporting something which I think would be to the disadvantage not only of the Assembly and Parliament but of Scottish Members of Parliament, who already will have a rather difficult job to do. Their job and their responsibilities will become more difficult if not only are devolved matters a subject of competition between them and Members of the Assembly and Parliament but of Scottish Members of Parliament, who already will have a rather difficult job to do. Their job and their responsibilities will become more difficult if not only are devolved matters a subject of competition between them and Members of the Assembly but there is some dispute about who is responsible for matters which are essentially for Parliament.

Mr. Dewar: The key amendment here, and the one on which there will be discussion and perhaps dispute, is the suggestion that the Assembly should have powers, if it thought it appropriate, to have committees looking at matters which fell without the devolved areas.
I regard this as a matter of some importance. I regard it perhaps as being more of significance in terms of the approach and attitude to the Assembly shown by the various parties in the House. Once we have established that we shall have an Assembly and have accepted the principle—the House is now in that position—it is the job of all of us to try to produce a system which is workable and will generate good will.
If one looks at any model of an Assembly or Parliament, one can always find areas in which theoretically there will be friction and disputes. No doubt, if the legendary man from Mars landed on this planet and were taken into the Palace of Westminster to inspect the system that we have created here, he would be summoning the small white van to have most of us taken away, on the ground that it was clearly the work of a lunaic and could not possibly operate. But it does operate because there are conventions that grow up, because good will exists between the parties and because there is a wish to operate the system.
The important point is that we must to some extent trust the Assembly. If we are not prepared to trust it, if we are not prepared to assume that it will be populated by adults, by people of some experience and people who have the interests of Scotland, and, indeed, of the United Kingdom, at heart, it seems to me that we shall be cabining, cribbing and confining it in an unnatural and unreasonable way. The Lords amendment, which I am sorry to see has the support of the Conservative Opposition here, is exactly that sort of mean, unnecessary and, it seems to me, wounding—I would also say "spiritually wrecking"—amendment.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has just said that we ought to assume that the Members of the Assembly will be adult—which I certainly do assume—hut also that they will be people who have the interests of the United Kingdom at heart. However, as a matter of hard fact, we know that all members of the Scottish National Party who are elected to that Assembly have as their principal and almost their sole objective the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dewar: As far as I am concerned, I am planning this Assembly as part of the Government of the United Kingdom. Of course, I may lose the argument in Scotland, and the Scottish nationalists may win that argument and take us out of the United Kingdom. Then, it is a different ball game. We shall not be talking about an Assembly at all. We shall be talking about a sovereign, independent Parliament and a sovereign, independent nation. While we remain in


the United Kingdom, however, I want a workable Assembly which will be seen to have the powers and the range of initiatives which any elected body would expect.
We come to the extraordinary argument of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). As I understand it, he is saying that we cannot allow these committees to be set up at discretion because if we do there will be, or there may be, a clash with Westminster.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No; I am sorry. A lot of hon. Members are trying to get into the debate.
I am certain that the way to reach a position of friction, the way to induce a clash betwee Westminster and the Assembly, is for Westminster to say to the Assembly "We give you a very narrow and well-defined series of remits and we shall not give you any element of discretion even to discuss matters that lie outwith them."

Mr. Bugden: rose—

Mr. Dewar: No. I have said "No". Of course, we do not attempt to cabin and confine local authorities in that way. No doubt we occasionally get impatient when local authorities in our area pass resolutions which seem to us to be draft. But we do not say to local authorities "You are not allowed even to discuss matters which obviously are of general interest to your electorate and which impinge upon the remit which you properly have."
Of course, we are right, as the Government have done, to limit very carefully the legislative powers and functions of the Assembly. We are right to try to tie down very precisely what its executive remit is. But if we say to the Assembly "You are not allowed, on an ad hoc basis, when it seems appropriate for you, even to discuss and to investigate wider matters in order to offer advice to the United Kingdom Government"—because there will be a dialogue—that seems to me to be a remarkable doctrine.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather confused on this point. First, we know that local

authorities make statements on matters quite outwith their normal remit, but they do not make those statements in committees that they form specially to discuss foreign affairs, North Sea oil or anything else. Therefore, the analogy does not hold water at all. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a very keen supporter of the Assembly. If he wants it to work and to earn a reputation for itself, he should realise that it should get on with the job that is being devolved to it and not get involved in other outside subjects.

Mr. Dewar: Of course it should get on with the job. In order to get on with the job, it must have the right to gather information and to have dialogues with the United Kingdom Government on all sorts of matters, such as the nationalised industries, which are obviously extremely relevant to its own find of operations. It is not a matter necessarily of setting up a formal structure of committees but a matter of merely having the power to have a committee where it thinks that there is a need and a cause for a specific investigation.
On the point about local authorities, if, instead of passing resolutions with no investigation, the local authorities set up committees to investigate before they spoke, we might on occasions have a rather more worthwhile dialogue with them on various matters.
We must not take this to ludicrous extremes, but if a local authority or the Scottish Assembly wanted to look at, as I say, the nationalised industries or the impact of North Sea oil on the economies of the Highlands, it seems to me to be, constitutionally, a ludicrously cheese-paring attitude to deny it that right.
This was nothing to do with extending the Assembly's legislative or executive powers. It is merely a matter of giving it a little bit of freedom to operate in a sensible way. It seems to me to add, therefore, to the debate in Scotland, which will continue, about the future of Scotland. The attitude which has been displayed in support of the motion is very unfortunate. I hope that the House will throw it out.

Mr. Powell: Greatly daring, it appears to me that both the Secretary of State and another place have not understood clause 26 and that, correctly understood, clause 26 renders Lords amendment no.


57 superfluous. Clause 26 is a permissive clause, but it is clearly not an unnecessary clause. In being permissive, therefore, of what it contains, it is prohibitive of what it does not contain. It says what sorts of committees may be appointed. Clearly, therefore, no committees other than those mentioned in clause 26 may be appointed, otherwise the clause is worse than a waste of paper.
So we look to the clause to see what sorts of committees may be appointed because they are the only ones which may be appointed. They are committees with functions. A committee cannot operate outside its terms of reference, and "functions" certainly is not a wider concept than "terms of reference". When a committee is set up, it is not simply set up with no terms of reference and no job to do. It is set up to do a defined job, and those are its functions. It cannot do anything outside those functions because the parent body is responsible for telling it what it can do and what it cannot do.
There is no point in our debating what the Assembly could debate. That is not in issue here. But a committee must attend to what is within its terms of reference. So we look at clause 26 to see what will be within its terms of reference, and what its terms of references will be are:
functions extending to any matter which…is a devolved matter.
Therefore, no committee can be given functions which do not extend to a devolved matter. Such a committee cannot be set up.
The only remaining question, therefore, is what is meant by "extending to". It does not appear to me that it means "including". It must be an outer limit of the functions of any given committee, and in totality the functions of all the committees could equal the total of devolved matters. Therefore, the notion that a committee can be set up which can do anything but address itself to a devolved matter or matters is in contradiction with the meaning of the clause.
No doubt it is desirable that debates at large should be confined to the Assembly itself. I agree with those who have said that it would be absurd for committees to concern themselves with such general de-

bates. But, under the clause as it stands, they cannot do so, because it would not be within their functions, and no committes without functions limited to devolved matters can be set up by the Assembly.
I think, therefore, that we can happily disagree with the Lords in the said amendment 57, but not for the reason given by the Secretary of State. I dare say that he does not mind about that, however.

Mr. Dalyell: Once again the Lords have performed a useful function, and I must say to the Minister of State that it is all very well to say that the Lords have performed their duty rather more quickly than we have in this House. The truth is that the whole attitude in the Lords towards speaking is different.
Perhaps I can illustrate, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection how, in the early 1960s, George Wigg, now the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, used in this House to cross-question Conservative Ministers of Defence at enormous length. I asked him the other day why on betting and gaming he did not do in the Lords what he had done in the Commons in his heyday. He said "It is not a matter of health or age; it is a matter that in this House of Lords you cannot do this because of the conventions and it would be counter-productive to try." That, I submit, is part of the reason why the Lords scrutiny of the Bill has taken a far quicker turn possibly than our own.
On this whole matter the Secretary of State and I live on different planets. He said that it was unlikely that the Assembly would wish to set up a committee to discuss non-devolved matters.
11.30 p.m.
I cannot think that any Assemblymen are likely to permit these constraints to be placed upon them. We are not talking about a county council. We are talking about people who will regard themselves as Members of a Scottish Parliament, with all the trappings of Parliament and who will not—and here I think I will have the support of hon. Members on the third Bench opposite below the Gangway—be deferential in any way. They will not be inhibited in any way.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) who is temporarily absent, thinks that the Assemblymen will stick to the job as it is designed here, he is displaying great naivety. They will not be encapsulated in any cage of that sort. Their own estimation of their power and authority will far exceed that.
In another place Lord Kirkhall said:
Perhaps some of the difficulty derives from the word 'functions', which can bear a variety of meanings. In relation to Ministers, functions' means powers and duties. Thus, Scottish Secretaries will inherit from Ministers functions in relation to devolved matters. In relation to Assembly committees, functions' means much less, because the committees will not be executive bodies. Neither the Assembly nor Scottish Secretaries will have functions ', meaning powers or duties, in relation reserved matters There is nothing that they can do about defence policy or, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has just mentioned, foreign policy, or about the question of industrial relations, which he also touched upon.
I have read all of that so as not to be accused of truncating the case and taking things out of context. Lord Kirkhill went on:
There is nothing to stop them discussing these matters, of course, but there is nothing that they can do about them, and that is the point which I wish to emphasise to your Lordships.
The Minister says that there is nothing to stop the Assembly from discussing matters but there is nothing that it can do. We are setting up—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will correct me if I have got it out of context—committees which, by definition, will be talking shops.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend will surely accept that what the Committees can do is influence this place and the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, they can examine the impact of United Kingdom measures on Scottish legislation and amend Assembly policy in devolved areas. That seems to be an important process.

Mr. Dalyell: That is an optimistic way of looking at it. Perhaps the chief factor which separates me from many of my hon. Friends in this matter is that for 16 years I had experience of contesting a parliamentary seat, chiefly with a Conservative opponent, but on five or six occasions—when they lost their deposits —with SNP candidates. I have no doubt, having lived with this for so long, that

the SNP will not be satisfied with a deferential talking shop. That is not what it is in business for. I think that SNP Members would agree. I have long experience of this, longer than some of my hon. Friends. They have had far greater industrial experience. I do not doubt that those in Western Scotland, such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, have had far more acute problems in industry than I have had in West Lothian. I do not argue that I have had a special problem. I have just had a different kind of political problem. This alters my outlook. We must not be naive about this. The idea that these committees will be cosy and content with their role and will remain within the guidelines which are acceptable to the House is unreal.
In the other place a question was asked but not answered when Earl Ferrers said:
If the Assembly, having a Party majority that was different from that at Westminster, declared that its sympathies lay with those who demanded 20 per cent., as against the Government's pay policy restrictions of 10 per cent., it would be wrong to permit the Assembly to set up committees which could deliberately and directly embarrass Westminster. This would be highly undesirable."—Official Report, House of Lords, 29th June 1978; Vol. 394, c. 408–412.
This is just one example of what would almost certainly happen and here, as in so much else, there would be the seeds of substantial conflict.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was at the peak of his form again in imagining what is likely to be the outcome in the Assembly. I think that he strayed from the negative aspects of the amendment and the positive aspects of having committees which can look at the whole general framework of Scotland.
I speak as one who is self-confessed as wanting a fully sovereign Parliament. There is no real difficulty about equating both the factors that I have mentioned in the Assembly structure, because it will be a non-sovereign Assembly: certain limitations will be placed upon it. If we are successful, all that we can do will be with the consent of the electorate. We shall not be able to go further than the electorate will allow.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argued that, according to his interpretation of clause 26, the


Assembly would not be allowed to set up Committees outwith its functions. That is an interesting concept. In this debate we are dealing with the Lords amendment, which is very much misdirected paternalism in that it seeks to bind the Assembly in constricted bands before it comes into existence and before the working experience of its Members comes into effect.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I believe that the Secretary of State's interpretation of clause 26 was correct and that the clause is part of the provisions for standing orders. The fact that the clause says that the Assembly may include provisions means that the clause is indicative and there is no reason why the Assembly could not have the sort of Committee that we on this side have been trying to prevent it from having and which the Secretary of State wants to encourage it to have.

Mr. Wilson: I did not say that I accepted the view of the right hon. Member for Down, South. I said that there is nothing that we can do at this stage about clause 26 except consider the Lords amendment to it. My interpretation of the terms of the clause agrees with that of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North.
There are advantages in giving powers to the Assembly—even permissive powers —to set up Committees which will consider matters which are not narrowly bound in with the functions of the Assembly. I am thinking of one of the subject headings mentioned by the Secretary of State—oil. In that respect one gets involved in the onshore activity—roads, marine works, housing, and environmental services. All these functions are involved in the macro-development of the oil industry off the coast of Scotland. It is obvious that, regardless of the political aspects, the Assembly will want to consider the effect of certain rates of oil development on the onshore activity it must finance; and, if necessary, the Assembly will have to make representations on industrial matters.
The Assembly will not, regrettably, have much of an industrial role, but it will appoint members to the Scottish Development Agency and I suppose it may have some secondary responsibility

for it. It may set up a Committee to oversee the operations of the SDA. If it does, it may wish to consider—through that Committee or through another one—regional incentives and matters which are important to the regional economies within Scotland. Certain aspects of transport are devolved, but air, sea and rail transport matters are largely excluded.
At some stage the Assembly may well want to look at the question of transport in Scotland as a whole and make suggestions for its better co-ordination. I do not think there is anything necessarily very heinous in that. The Assembly has been given some responsibility for agriculture. The same is true in fisheries.
That raises the points that Lord Kirkhill raised in the Lords. He said that if the Assembly considered these through its committee structure nothing more could happen, but I disagree with that. The Assembly could consider those aspects that are important to Scotland and perhaps give advice to the Secretary of State and seek to persuade him and other Ministers that changes should be made for the general good of the country. That advice would come from the operation of the Committee structure. There are, therefore, important benefits to be gained.
On amendment no. 58, I have no objection to building in the need for a balance, but I cannot see, given the political circumstances of the Assembly, that unbalanced Committees would be likely. Even in this place I have heard of disagreements about the composition of Commons Committees when there has been a neat position in the House. One cannot object to that happening. It is simply paternalistic.
Amendment no. 59 provides that the standing orders shall include provisions for the reporting of the proceedings of the Assembly. That is the sort of matter that should have been left to the Assembly to decide. It should decide whether it is to report and publish some aspects of its proceedings, or whether it wished some of these matters to be dealt with by electronic methods not necessarily involving publication. It is not worth objecting too strongly to these points, but I accuse the Lords of interfering too much in matters that are the affairs of the Assembly.

Mr. George Robertson: I was highly impressed by the eloquent and circuitous argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the juxtaposition of clause 26 and the amendment to it. I do not feel qualified at this stage to counter the right hon. Gentleman's complex and highly convincing argument, but no doubt there is an answer to it.
Amendment no. 57 clearly seeks to underline the attempt that has been made to frustrate the openness of the debates in the Assembly and its committees. One prime advantage of the Assembly and devolution is that there will be a new openness in the discusion of the subjects that are to be devolved. The large range of duties and functions that are to be devolved presents a massive task for the Assembly. An unrealistic attempt at the beginning to shackle the Assembly by pretending that its Committees will be restricted to dealing solely with devolved subjects is unnecessary and petty. It indicates to me that when the other place considered the amendment its aim was to frustrate rather than assist the objectives of devolution.
Having sat through today's debate, I know that I am not allowed to quote from certain of the proceedings in the other place. I draw the attention of hon. Members, however, to the Official Report of the other place for 11th April, column 470, lines 33 and 34, where Lord Wigg's view is reported—I concur with it—on the attitude of the Lords to devolution.
The basic subject of agriculture is not devolved to the Assembly. But how can the Assembly consider in Committee all aspects of rural policy, including transport and housing, without seriously considering the implications of that policy for agriculture, and of agriculture for it?
11.45 p.m.
The police service is still not a devolved subject. Yet how can the Assembly, in the detailed work that its Committees will do, consider social problems, housing and deprivation, which by common consent are at the roots of the problems of law and order in Scotland, as in the rest of the country? Clearly the discussions would be bound to extend into areas which technically would infringe upon the limitations established in this amendment.
Tourism is an area of policy devolved to the Scottish Assembly. It will be of crucial importance in the development of an economic policy for Scotland in the Scottish Assembly. Yet how can a Committee of the Assembly consider aspects of tourism, developing tourism policy and areas in which tourism could be developed if it is not also to consider some aspects of foreign policy, foreign markets, the type of foreign tourist to be attracted, and the nature of the problems involved in foreign currency? It will be essential for such a Committee to consider these matters if it is to deal in the proper manner with the subject-matter of the areas devolved to it.
If the Assembly itself in its major chamber can discuss these subjects, it is ludricrous to deny the same right to the Committee structure in which the detail of these matters will be considered.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my hon. Friend really saying that the Assembly should have the right to set up Committees to pass judgment on every piece of legislation which may come before this House, that is not related to devolved matters? Does not he see the danger there of the Assembly demanding the right to have its say and demanding that Scottish Members of Parliament should follow the Assembly line rather than deal with the legislation in this House?

Mr. Robertson: I think that the Scottish Assembly can do that, anyway. But simply because it is denied the right to set up a Committee will not prevent it from doing the horrifying things that those who are hostile to the concept of devolution believe that it will do anyway.
All this amendment does is deny the right to the Committees to make this sort of perambulation round these subjects. It does not deny the right of the Chamber or of the Assembly itself to discuss any matter that it chooses, whether it is considered by this Assembly, by the European Assembly or by the United Nations. All that we are talking about here is restricting the area of the Committees. If it is possible to speculate that the Committees would do it, why would not the Chamber and the full Assembly itself do it? I believe that it will do it anyway.


By virtue of its existence, its powers and its responsibilities, I believe that it will have to consider matters which are slightly and sometimes considerably out-with its remit. Members of it will be responsible people, and I believe that it is important that the discussions that take place on these matters are held in public in the Committees and do not become the subject matter of private, closed discussions outwith the Scottish Assembly. That is where it would be, in any event, if the sort of restrictive amendment that this represents were passed.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I want to direct a few remarks to Lords amendment No. 57. I agree strongly with the cogent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). It would be disastrous for a Scottish Assembly to have the power to set up Committees on subjects for which it has no responsibility. Already we are giving the Assembly the power to make great mischief. We ought to be trying to limit the amount of mischief that it can do.
As the Secretary of State said, the Assembly will have to discuss at a tangent matters such as North Sea oil. It is impossible to discuss housing in Grampian without impinging upon North Sea oil. We understand that. But that is very different from giving the Assembly the power to set up Committees on oil, on defence and on foreign affairs. The whole concept is ludicrous.
There are a number of reasons why we ought to object to this proposal. The first is that undoubtedly it would cause conflict. One factor which has emerged from these debates time and again is that this Bill inevitably will cause conflict between a Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh and the House of Commons here at Westminster. Even a Conservative Administration in Edinburgh and a Conservative Administration at Westminster would no doubt find something to quarrel about, once the Scottish Assembly had the power to start shooting its mouth off on North Sea oil, for example.
Let us assume the ludicrous—that there is a Liberal Administration in the Scottish Assembly. The Liberals have been asking that 50 per cent. of all money from North Sea oil should be spent in

Scotland. That was their absurd contribution to the great oil debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has just returned to the Chamber, because it was his absurd idea that 50 per cent. of North Sea oil revenue should be spent in Scotland. Suppose that happened. Imagine the conflict between the Liberal Administration in Edinburgh and a Conservative or Labour Administration here. That is just one example of the way in which the setting up of Committees on subjects for which the Assembly has no responsibility whatsoever causes more division and conflict between London and Edinburgh.
Apart from the conflict, there is no doubt that if we set up Committees in the Scottish Assembly to discuss subjects such as North Sea oil, income tax and foreign affairs, it would raise expectations in the minds of the Scottish people—expectations that the Assembly has no power to fulfill. This would lead to disillusion with politicians of all kinds—here and in Scotland. It would also lead to a Scotland against England conflict, which I regard as the greatest danger in the Bill.
As well as causing mischief, creating conflict and raising expectations, there is another danger in this power. It would cost money. If a Committee were set up to look into the subject of North Sea oil, there would be a whole raft of new civil servants. These civil servants would have to be paid salaries. There would be specialist staff who would have to be paid. Scottish Assemblymen would be sent to Norway and Saudi Arabia to see how things were done there.
One of the main reasons why, in the referendum, the people of Scotland will reject the miserable idea of an Assembly, is the expense it involves. We already feel that we are overtaxed. The idea of being taxed again to pay for this ludicrous Assembly will lead to its rejection. This set of amendments will cost more money because of the need for more civil servants, more specialist staffs, and more incentives to travel.
It will be hard enough for the people of Scotland to distinguish between the duties of community councillors, district councillors, regional councillors, Scottish Assemblymen, Members of the House of Commons, and Members of the European Parliament. All these people will have


different responsibilities and the duties of the different layers of government will be misunderstood. How much more will they be misunderstood and give rise to misunderstanding and conflict if the Scottish Assembly is given powers to set up Committees to make policy statements on areas in which it has no responsibilities? This will lead to quango-itis, and there are too many quangos already.
Because of the mischief and conflict that will be caused, because of the raising of expectations which cannot be fulfilled and because it will all cost more money, I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not think that we can avoid the Assembly having general debates, but we can make clear from the beginning that the Assembly should have its say outside of devolved matters as an exception rather than as a rule. We are setting up an Assembly to do the practical work for Scotland—that is its prospectus.
If we say that the Assembly should have power to set up Committees, it will be impossible to resist the temptation to have Committees on everything simply because it would seem mean and petty for the Assembly not to have a committee to look at the social security system, for example, or national insurance.
Therefore, there would be the real possibility of Committees being set up to spend months looking at particular White Papers and particular legislation passing through this House on non-devolved matters. Then we shall find the press crying out that the Assembly has spoken, spent months looking at a problem and that Scottish MPs must therefore listen to the Assembly. Then, if Westminster does not take the view of the Assembly, we shall see the headlines in the Daily Record and The Scotsman reading "Westminster rejects the Assembly again."
This constant to-ing and fro-ing is what the SNP seeks to foster. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) should not get upset because he thinks that because people have practical objections and are hostile to the Assembly they are hostile to devolution and to him. They are trying to point to the real problems that may arise. Willie Wolfe of the—SNP has said that his party will take

everything in the Assembly to the veto and will insist that the Assembly pronounces on all these matters.
The convention obviously will have to be settled, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was correct in his view. The convention is as important as what is written in the Bill. We should make it clear that the Assembly's function is to deal with devolved matters, namely, the practical day-to-day affairs. I would not deny it the right to make pronouncements on overall matters, but that should he the exception rather than the rule. There is nothing anti-Scottish about that because we are dealing here with strictly defined constitutional devolution. We must bear these matters in mind from the beginning, otherwise we shall be on the road to disaster.

Mr. Millan: Nobody has argued for Lords amendment no. 55, which would make Committees mandatory. Therefore, I hope the House will agree with our motion to disagree with it. However, I believe that Lords amendment No. 58 will be generally acceptable to the House. Therefore, the only question we are left with in dealing with this group of amendments is whether the Assembly should be prohibited from having a Committee to deal to any significant degree with any devolved matter.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argued that the wording of clause 26 already prevented that from happening. My advice is that that is not the position, and that there is nothing in that clause which would prevent the establishment of a Committee by the Assembly which dealt with devolved matters, either incidentally or in a significant way, as well as with non-devolved matters.
The argument has been whether we should specifically exclude a Committee of the Assembly from dealing with non-devolved matters. One has only to heed the various examples given in the debate to have it demonstrated that that would be an unnecessary, and indeed unworkable, restriction to put on the Assembly. I mention the subject of North Sea oil, as well as particular aspects of transport in Scotland which would be of some significance to the Assembly which has certain transport


functions devolved to it, but the Assembly will also want to take into account what is happening in non-devolved functions. We have also had illustrations from agriculture, and one could even cite the case of fisheries. In view of the present feeling about fisheries, it would be a bold Member who tried to prevent the Scottish Assembly from even talking about fisheries in committee or in full session. On the point about full session—

Mr. Pym: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milan: No, I have only one minute to go.

Mr. Pym: It will be too late then.

Mr. Milan: There is nothing to prevent the Assembly from discussing these matters in full Assembly outside a Committee, as has been acknowledged by the House this evening. That make it all the more absurd to try to write amendment no. 57 into the Bill to restrict what would be an ordinary, practical and sensible function of the Assembly Committees.

Mr. Pym: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Millan: This is the sort of matter—

It being midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order[4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at midnight.

Lords amendment: No. 58, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that in appointing members to such committees referred to in paragraph (a) above the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is as closely as practicable reflected in the membership of each such committee.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 1, leave out 'Provided that'.

Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put forthwith and agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out
'referred to in paragraph (a) above'.

Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put forthwith and agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 56 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 57, in page 12. line 25, at end insert—
("(b) for ensuring that no committee shall be appointed with functions not relating to devolved matters").

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 229.

Division No. 253]
AYES
[12.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cohen, Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Corbett, Robin


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)
Buchan, Norman
Cowans, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ian
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Canavan, Dennis
Cronin, John


Bates, Alt
Cant, R. B.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bean, R. E.
Carmichael, Neil
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carter, Ray
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil


Blenklnsop, Arthur
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gover)


Boardman,H.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)




Deakins, Eric
Luard, Evan
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sever, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dormand, J. D.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Dunn, James A.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snape, Peter


Edge, Geoff
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Magee, Bryan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Evans, John (Newton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Swain, Thomas


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


George, Bruce
Molloy, William
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, George


Gould, Bryan
Moonman, Eric
Tierney, Sydney


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tilley, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Tinn, James


Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
Tomlinson, John


Hardy, Poter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tomney, Frank


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley
Urwln, T. W.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Hallcran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Henderson, Douglas
Orbech, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Howell. Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George
Watkinson, John


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert
Watt, Hamish


Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Penhaligon, David
Wellbeloved, James


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest
Welsh, Andrew


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, James (Pollok)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Radlce, Glles
Whitlock, William


John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Reid, George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jchnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Judd, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woodall, Alec


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lamborn, Harry
Roper, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Litterick, Tom
Ryman, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Loyden, Eddie
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Ted Graham.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Alison, Michael
Bottomley, Peter
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Channon, Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Churchill, W. S.


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Baker, Kenneth
Brittan, Leon
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brotherton, Michael
Cope, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Costain, A. P.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crouch, David


Biffen, John
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Blggs-Davison, John
Budgen, Nick
Dalyell, Tam


Blaker, Peter
Bulmer, Esmond
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey







Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhodes James, R.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Farr, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fell, Anthony
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fleicher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Forman Nigel
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacKay, Andrew (Stechfora)
Sinclair, Sir George


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gordiner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilsan, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Goodlsd, Alastair
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Gorsl, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanley, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Grieve, Percy
Miller Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Griffiths, Eldon
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Taylor, R.(Croydon NW)


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Tebbit, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trotter, Neville


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Higgins, Terence L.
Ogden, Eric
Wall, Patrick


Hodgson, Robin
Onslow, Craniey
Walters. Dennis


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Warren, Kenneth


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)
Weatherill, Bernard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Cecil
Whitney, Raymond


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Pink, R. Bonner



Jessel, Toby
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sir George Young and


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy



Lords amendments nos. 59 to 62 agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments to be further considered this day.—[Mr. Millan.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) will wait until the noise subsides, I shall time the Adjournment debate from when I call him.

LAWRENCE-MOON-BIEDL SYNDROME (HODEN FAMILY)

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Many hon. Members are well acquainted with tragedy. Each day we learn of the griefs and tribulations which affect our constituents or ourselves. That is why I understand why the Under-Secretary of State is replying to the debate. Perhaps we become so accustomed to responding that the response becomes habitual. But sometimes we encounter circumstances which are particularly dreadful.
This has certainly been the case with my experience of the Hoden family of East Hellingthorpe, Rotherham. The first I learned of this family's problems was through the local papers. I checked that Mr. and Mrs. Hoden were my constituents and then commenced inquiries into what seemed to be an alarming story. The inquiries convinced me that the alarm was justified.
I called to see the Hodens at their home in the company of Mr Payne, the secretary of the Rotherham community health council, on 29th April. Before I made that call Mr. Payne furnished me with a moving account of the family's experiences. I wrote to the Minister and the Rotherham health authority and conveyed the Hodens' strong belief that a thorough inquiry should be held. Mrs. Hoden had written in similar terms to the authority on 3rd February this year.
The area administrator wrote to me on 26th May to say that the chairman had instructed his officials to assemble all the known facts in order to assist the authority to decide whether to hold an inquiry. I understand that the information is still being compiled. I believe, however, that sufficient information is known to allow a decision to be made. But that question has not yet been resolved.
I received a letter from the chairman dated 23rd June which informed me that the information was not yet ready for decision. The Minister might say that I should have awaited a decision. But I did not feel that I could let further months elapse. The pace of administration must not be allowed to determine the speed of representative response.
I regret that matters have not proceeded more urgently. I hope that the Minister will not seek to shelter behind the authority. I hope that what he knows already and what I shall say will convince him of the need to urge that an inquiry is held. It is necessary not to blame individuals or pillory the service but to ensure that lessons are learned.
Mr. and Mrs. Hoden are good and respectable people. Mr. Hoden is a strong clean man and is a mains layer in the civil engineering industry. He is quiet and decent and is an anchor in the storms which have assailed his home. Mrs. Hoden is more articulate, a good

South Yorkshire housewife and, as the authority is learning, a determined mother. She has a passionate concern for her children. I am not surprised, just as I am not critical, about the insistent questions which she is asking about her children. The replies she has received have not satisfied her.
The three children are said to be affected by the Lawrence-Moon-Biedl syndrome. Tina is the eldest, born in December 1961. Diane was born in May 1963 and Barry in January 1965. They have been receiving attention for visual difficulty almost since infancy. Tina was born in Listerdale Hospital, Rotherham with extra digits which were removed at Lodge Moor hospital, Sheffield when she was a baby. She was then a patient at the children's hospital in Sheffield. Both Diane and Barry had similar experience.
Just before Barry was born in 1965, the two girls contracted measles and Diane seemed to develop an eye condition. She was seen at the Doncaster Gate hospital, Rotherham, and was referred for eye exercises and treatment, which included wearing a patch to correct a lazy eye. Later records suggest that nystagmus was diagnosed.
Barry was born in similar condition, again with extra digits, but with the addition of talipes foot. Surgery to remedy this was carried out before he was 11 months old. He then developed cerebrospinal meningitis and was in hospital at Moorgate in Rotherham. Barry was classed as ineducable while in his fourth year. Tina started school at five in the normal way. Eye tests were carried out, but Mrs. Hoden was told little except that the girl was short-sighted.
From about this time Mr. and Mrs. Hoden found that accidents were happening and they could not let the girls out after dark. Questions were asked at the eye clinic but these are said to have brought merely a brisk and officious response.
At the age of seven Tina was said to be falling behind at school and she was later classified as backward and sent to the Abbey special school in Rotherham. Diane was given a similar classification and attended this school from the age of six. Barry, classed earlier as ineducable, made progress and also arrived at the Abbey school.
The children had regular eye tests but the parents were never given any idea that a serious position was developing, until retinitis pigmentosa was simultaneously diagnosed in all three children late last year. Certainly from the period when the eldest girl, Tina, was about nine, the children were often having accidents, slipping off kerbs, bumping into posts, walls, and so on. The attention of the medical authorities was drawn to these incidents but they were told that it was because the children were backward.
Eventually Mr. and Mrs. Hoden requested that the children see another consultant. This consultant, so Mrs. Hoden tells me, said simply that both girls had bad right eyes and that the optic nerve was withering.
By 1977 the Abbey school had become worried since the children were experiencing serious difficulty. Unbeknown to the parents, the school is said to have expressed anxiety. I have spoken to the headmaster and he confirms that the anxiety was serious enough for him to feel that needs seemed to be going unresolved.
In early 1977, the school medical officer was asked to assist. At about the same time I understand that a doctor from the department visited the school for another purpose and met these children. Apparently he is said to have urged that further steps were needed.
In April 1977, Mrs. Hoden learned that the school authorities had contacted the medical authorities, and in June these children saw another consultant. They were told that the right optic nerve had withered and they had night blindness. The case was referred to another consultant. Five months elapsed before this was arranged.
On 1st November last year the consultant, Mr. Maw, saw the three children with their parents. There was great distress when the parents learned that all three were going to be totally blind. Mr. and Mrs. Hoden then discussed the matter with Mr. Maw, who explained the nature of the condition. I understand that Mr. Maw was unaware that no earlier explanation had been given. Perhaps I should add that I am not critical of Mr. Maw. He is an experienced consultant of high standing in our area and he faced a dreadful situation. To have

to break such news must have been an ordeal. The ground should have been prepared before.
Mrs. Hoden has asked if the eye condition could be the cause of other difficulties and anxieties and of the series of trials and tribulations which had been experienced.
The Lawrence-Moon-Biedl syndrome was at least suspected by Mr. Maw, as soon as he saw the children together. He observed common characteristics, not merely the visual difficulties. I believe that he wondered whether retinitis pigmentosa was not primary but part of another condition or syndrome, a distinct group of symptoms which form a whole.
The case was then referred to Dr. Hosking, a consultant at the Reigate centre for children in Sheffield. Dr. Hosking confirmed Mr. Maw's suspicions. Aspects of the syndrome are or were to be observed in each of the Hoden children—extra digits at birth, obesity, the dreadful handicap of retinitis pigmentosa, some deafness, and mental retardation, although as far as deafness is concerned, the girl's problems appear to be eased now, for only Barry wears a hearing aid.
The Hodens therefore know the worst. As I said, that was very long after the first symptoms were to be observed. To be fair, this syndrome is rare. Dr. Hosking had encountered only two previous cases, but it is a well documented condition, first described a century ago, and I know that one child—one, not three—sadly has had it diagnosed in another area of Yorkshire recently. That child is only seven years of age.
Mr. and Mrs. Hoden do not seem to be critical of the education authority, for they were told that on the children's records—records which clearly ought to have been more adequate—there was only reference to eye difficulty. That is an example of unsatisfactory communication which my hon. Friend should note.
Early this year the Hodens visited the Henshaw school for the visually handicapped in Harrogate. It was pointed out quite properly that the elder girl, Tina, by now aged 16, should be leaving school, not starting it. I understand that one official present remarked that something had gone wrong somewhere. Something


very clearly has gone wrong. The condition—if I may use Mr. Payne's words, the approach to eventual darkness—had been disregarded.
Since the diagnosis Mr. and Mrs. Hoden have attempted to ascertain the facts. As far as they are concerned there was no hint of gravity of vision until June 1977. There should not have been such delay, such slowness of response, or such inadequacy of communication, before the consultation on 1st November. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear this in mind when the authority considers its decision.
I know that the Trent region health authority, and our South Yorkshire part of it especially, has been the least favoured area for health provision for a century or more. I know that the Government are set on a course to put that right. But the fact is that while we have below-average waiting lists at our hospitals the Trent authority has 17·4 consultants per 100,000 population, as I learnt from a Question this week, and that compares unfavourably with the highest provision, at North-East Thames, of 26·19 per 100,000. I know that my hon. Friend is determined to get the balance right, but I should like him to be rather less gradual in his approach. Certainly, I hope that inadequacies in consultant establishment have not proved a factor in this case. He might care to comment on that.
The children, all three, commenced attendance at the Henshaw school in February. I have spoked to Mr. Seed, the head, this week. The latest position is interesting. Given earlier classification of Tina as educationally sub-normal, I was surprised when Mrs. Hoden told me that Tina had asked her the other day "Mother, what do I have to do to prove that I am not stupid?" That is not a question an educationally sub-normal child would ask.
Tina is not now classified as ESN. An educational psychologist assessed her earlier this year and said that were it not for Tina's sight she would have no hesitation in sending her to a normal school. This view seems substantiated by the fact that after 11 weeks at the Henshaw school, Tina obtained a certificate of merit for successfully passing her first

Braille test. She can now manage to read simple language in Braille. Clearly, there was a dreadful error in her early classification. That needs to be considered, too. I regret that I cannot say that there is obvious error in educational classification of the siblings, but clearly Tina was wrongly labelled.
Certainly, one can well understand Mrs. Hoden's anguished cry "Can anyone tell me how in the name of God did three children escape the diagnostic and registration net?" Mr. and Mrs. Hoden insist that they should know, and I believe they have that right. As their Member of Parliament, I feel that investigation is needed.
I have it on authority—and my own observation bears this out—that Mr. and Mrs. Hoden are caring parents. I am not convinced that society has shown sufficient care. I consider that we need to know whether medical, social and educational diagnoses, treatment and arrangements have been sufficiently careful. We also need to know whether there has been adequate communication between the individuals and agencies involved.
Until Mr. Maw's consultation there was grossly inadequate communication to the parents. Mrs. Hoden maintains her belief that the diagnosis was noted earlier, and does not seem to accept the explanation of the reference to the condition on an attendance allowance application form.
I have already raised serious questions. As I first wrote to my hon. Friend some time ago to express my concern, I hope that he is able to offer comment. Before he does, let me say that South Yorkshire places great store on good neighbourliness. That is shown in this case. In various parts of our area the people have been touched by the Hodens' experience, and widespread effort is being put into aid for the children. I welcome this evidence of kindness.
It is good to know that there are many Samaritans in South Yorkshire. But, as my hon. Friend will realise, we in South Yorkshire, above all, are entitled to expect that official provision is sufficient. We are not so given to the parrot cry of cutting taxes above everything, for our history leads us to recognise that civilised arrangements are necessary and must be paid for. We are offended by the reality


of Mrs. Hoden's comment of 3rd February to the health authority, "If someone had spoken years ago, my children would have received years ago the help they will now get". We wish to know why they did not get it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) recently raised the question of treatment for retinitis pigmentosa. I shall not repeat his arguments, but I welcome the Minister's promise to several of us on the Labour Benches that he will study the cases of people who believe that they have benefited from the Oops clinic treatment. May I ask that this study be carried out with urgency? May I ask that if it reveals that benefit has been conferred, provision of this treatment will be rapidly encouraged? That may offend orthodoxy. However, until the study is complete one cannot ignore the claims of people who feel that their condition is noticeably improved by the treatment. I am uneasy about their claims, for I understand that spontaneous improvement is anyway possible. I understand the official response, but, given their experience, the Hodens cannot be easily reassured.
My hon. Friend may be able to tell me that every possible help will be given to these children in the future. I shall be pleased to hear that. However, I should also like to be assured that the failure in communication, the inadequacies in response and the possible misinterpretations and inaccurate classification apparent in this family's experience will not be repeated on the scale that has apparently occurred here.
Certainly authority should consider whether it fully understands the public response, for, as I have shown, this case has moved many people in my area.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), I attended the East Herringthorpe club on Friday night, when one of the efforts to support this family was under way. I met Mr. and Mrs. Hoden again there. Hundreds of people had come to show their support. Seven hundred pounds was raised in a very short time. The widespread kindness which was exhibited was memorable. But more important and more obvious was the cry that this must not

happen again. There was very genuine and very welcome concern.
I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy those people, will be able to respond to the Hodens' needs, and will be able to comment appropriately on my questions.

12.31 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for the careful and considered way in which he has approached this most difficult matter tonight and for this opportunity to reply.
I am keenly aware of the deep concern which he feels about this tragic case and of which the correspondence which in recent weeks has passed between him and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible for health on this subject is ample evidence. No one could listen unmoved to my hon. Friend's account of the very sad circumstances in which Mr. and Mrs. Hoden and their three children now find themselves.
I should like to preface my reply by expressing my deepest sympathy to Mr. and Mrs. Hoden and their family and by paying tribute to the courage and determination which they have shown in refusing to buckle under the misfortunes which have befallen them in recent years and their determination to adopt a constructive role in a situation in which some might have been tempted to despair.
Before turning to the details of the case, I should like to say a few introductory words about the Lawrence-Moon-Biedl syndrome. The syndrome was first described by Lawrence and Moon in 1865 and further delineated in the 1920s by Bardet and Biedl. It is an uncommon inherited condition. The principal manifestations are obesity, hypogenitalism, mental retardation, extra digits, and retinitis pigmentosa.
Retinitis pigmentosa involves slow degeneration of the retinae of both eyes, which starts in childhood and often results in blindness in middle age. The first symptoms may be night blindness—the inability to see adequately in darkened conditions—for several years before any pigment is visible in the retinae. The sufferer's field of vision then begins to


narrow, but the ability to see in the central field—"tube vision"—can be retained until middle age. The syndrome is a congenital one: parents of affected children may be carriers but may not themselves exhibit any features of the condition.
As I said, the syndrome is an uncommon one, but it is difficult to give any precise figures on incidence. In recent years, new registrations, as blind or partially sighted, of children with retinitis pigmentosa in all it various forms have been fewer than 20 a year. A doctor may suspect the possibility that a child could be suffering from this syndrome from one or more of the following symptoms: if there is a family history of the condition; if the child is born with extra digits; if the child's development is slow, and if he develops obesity and has difficulty in seeing in the dark; if the visual field reduces gradually; or if pigment is seen in the retina on ophthalmoscopy. The extent of abnormalities may vary considerably in different members of the family, making diagnosis difficult, particularly in the early stages. Sadly, there is no known effective treatment for this condition.
At this point, perhaps I should make it clear that the Lawrence-Moon-Biedl syndrome is only one of a number of conditions which give rise to retinitis pigmentosa. Research into the group of diseases in which pigmentary degeneration of the retina arises during childhood or early adulthood is at present being undertaken by the Institute of Ophthalmology.
Let me now turn to the Hoden case itself. The matter first came to my right hon. Friend's attention following the receipt of a letter dated 25th April 1978, from my hon. Friend, with which he enclosed a letter, dated 3rd February 1978, from Mrs. Hoden to the area administrator, Rotherham AHA, together with a detailed account, of the same date, of Mrs. Hoden's case, ably prepared for her and her husband by Mr. R. L. Payne, secretary of the Rotherham community health council, to which Mrs. Hoden had turned for assistance.
These papers gave case histories of Mr. and Mrs. Hoden's three children—Tina Jane, 16, Dianne, 14, and Barry, 12. Mrs. Hoden described how Tina was born with extra digits—subsequently removed —on her hands and feet. She had regular

eye tests, started to wear glasses at an early age, but attended ordinary school from the age of five. She started to fall behind in her school work at the age of six and eventually was transferred to a special school.
Dianne, too, was born with extra digits, subsequently removed when she was 2½. She attended ordinary school from the age of 4½ years, had trouble with her eyes, fell behind with her school work and was transferred to the same special school as Tina. Barry was born with extra toe digits and a talipes—or "club foot". When he was a baby, he also contracted cerebral spinal meningitis and had several operations on his foot. He was educationally more retarded than his sisters but eventually moved to the same school as his sisters.
Mrs. Hoden went on to stress that all her children had throughout their lives attended eye clinics as necessary, and described how on 18th June 1977 she was told by Dr. Bannerjee, at a school eye clinic at the Ferham clinic in Rotherham, that her three children were suffering from "night blindness" and needed appropriate education.
Mrs. Hoden described her sense of shock when, on 1st November 1977, Mr. Maw, consultant ophthalmologist at Doncaster Gate hospital, Rotherham, informed her that all three children had retinitis pigmentosa and would eventually become totally blind. Mrs. Hoden concluded by making a number of points: she wanted to know why she had only now been told about this diagnosis when, so she believed, it had appeared on one of the children's medical records at a much earlier date; she also maintained that the failure to diagnose the condition earlier meant that the two older children had missed valuable years of education at the Henshaw school for the blind in Harrogate, where, since 20th February, all three children have been pupils as weekly boarders.
Mrs. Hoden also wondered how the eyes of three children of different ages could be affected by retinitis pigmentosa at the same time, and why the diagnosis was not made much earlier, particularly as all three children had attended eye clinics regularly throughout their lives. Mrs. Hoden concluded by asking for a formal inquiry into the case, a request


which my hon. Friend endorsed in letters, both dated 1st May, to the administrator, Rotherham AHA, and to my right hon. Friend respectively.
Following inquiries made on my right hon. Friend's behalf locally, the area administrator, Rotherham AHA, wrote to my Department on 26th May—and my right hon. Friend wrote to my hon. Friend on 13th June in similar terms—to say that the AHA chairman, on behalf of the AHA, had instructed the officers to assemble all the known medical information on the Hoden family, and that once this had been completed a report would be made to the AHA so that the members could decide whether to hold a formal inquiry.
The area administrator also enclosed a copy of the note of a meeting held between Mr. and Mrs. Hoden, Dr. Maw, and representatives of the health and education authorities and the community health council on 21st April. He also enclosed a copy of a letter of the same date-26th May—to my hon. Friend, which conveyed much the same information and confirmed that the diagnosis of retinitis pigmentosa was first made in all three children in June 1977 by Dr. Bannejee at a school eye clinic in Ferham clinic, and that the children were referred to Mr. Maw, consultant ophthalmologist, who confirmed that diagnosis.
At the meeting on 21st April already mentioned, I understand that Mr. Maw gave a detailed account of the three children's ophthalmic history. He indicated that originally three children had "nystagmus" commonly referred to as "wobble" in the eyes, together with a squint, and this had been the main condition for which the children had been receiving treatment over the years. It was not until June 1977 that Dr. Bannerjee at the school eye clinic detected signs of pigment on the retina of the three children and, according to Mrs. Hoden, told her that the children were suffering from "night blindness".
Mr. Maw said that "night blindness" was in fact retinitis pigmentosa, and that Dr. Bannerjee must have used the lay term "night blindness" when describing it to them. Dr. Bannerjee had then referred the three children to Mr. Maw, who, because of the long waiting list, had

not been able to see them until November. In answer to a question from Mrs. Hoden whether it was possible for retinitis pigmentosa to be detected at the same time in three children of different ages, Mr. Maw said that the stage of pigmentation in the three children was different—it was more evident in the oldest child and scarcely detectable in the youngest child.
At that meeting, Mr. Maw also explained to Mr. and Mrs. Hoden that it was only in November 1977 that he had for the first time seen the three children all together as a family and had observed certain features common to all three. It occurred to him then that the condition from which the children were suffering was the Lawrence-Moon-Biedl syndrome, of which retinitis pigmentosa is one manifestation. In addition, Mr. Maw suggested, the children already had a quite separate eye condition—nystagmus—for which they had been receiving treatment over the years. and that it was in the course of a routine examination that pigmentation of the retina had been detected in the oldest child, with lesser symptoms apparent in the second child and scarcely detectable symptoms in the youngest child. The condition could not have been detected earlier by the conventional means available.
Mr. Maw suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Hoden that the children should be seen as a family together by someone who would be able fully to assess their condition and to help them to prepare for and cope with the future. Mr. and Mrs. Hoden agreed that the children should be referred to Dr. William Hosking, consultant paediatric neurologist, who had recently been appointed to the Ryegate centre for children, Sheffield, and who was very willing to see them.
Apart from a further exchange of correspondence between my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend, which culminated in my right hon. Friend's letter of 27th June, and which need not detain us now, this brings us up to date. My hon. Friend may have been hoping at this stage in my reply I might have been able to announce that the AHA has finally decided to hold a formal inquiry. I must say straight away that I am not in such a position and that the situation remains substantially the same as that reported in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend's recent Question on


the subject, namely, that once all the known medical information on the children has been assembled the AHA will decide whether to hold a formal inquiry.
I understand that all three children have been seen by many different agencies both in and outside Rotherham during their lives, and so the assembly of their medical records and preparation of a chronological synopsis of all the treatment which the children have received since birth is proving to be a very complex and time-consuming task. I understand that at its June meeting the AHA supported the chairman's action in putting this task in hand. I also understand that the AHA hopes to complete assembly of the material in the next week or two, and that it will then be sent to Trent regional health authority, to which a report has already been made in accordance with the normal procedures. The RHA then intends to send the summary and case notes to an independent assessor, who will be asked to advise the two authorities about the management of these cases. In the light of the advice given by the independent assessor, the health authorities will be able to decide the form of any inquiry and its terms of reference.
I know that my hon. Friend is impatient to have the health authorities' decision on this matter. That is very understandable. Nevertheless, I hope that he will accept what I have said about the complexity of the task which the health authorities are undertaking and the assurance which they have given me that they are both very much aware of the need to come to a decision as quickly as possible. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on that score, but it would clearly be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage when the health authorities are still assembling the facts and have yet to reach conclusions on them. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's statement of the facts are immediately drawn to the authorities' attention.
To return to the Hoden children, I understand that, as arranged, Dr. Hosking saw the three children at the Rye-gate centre in Sheffield in 17th May and that a copy of his report, dated 25th May, to Mr. Maw was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Hoden. I understand, too, that although Dr. Hosking has made no further

arrangements to see the children, since they are at present at school in Harrogate, he has discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Hoden the need for help in the future as the children grow up, though he is confident that, in the first instance, this help will come from or through the school. He has, however, offered to help in any way he can, if Mr. and Mrs. Hoden wish him to do so.
Mr. Maw, the consultant ophthalmologist who was responsible for the children, has been consulted about their further medical treatment and has indicated that in his opinion the efficacy of advertised treatments for retinitis pigmentosa in Switzerland and Russia—a subject I will go into in more detail in a moment —are not generally established, proven or accepted in the rest of the western world or even in those two countries. He does not, therefore, subscribe to such treatments and does not want to press for NHS resources to be used to refer patients to these centres. His view is that resources are better used in doing everything possible to educate and train such patients in the light of their disability.
To this end, once Mr. Maw had seen the children last November and recommended appropriate education for them, their details were forwarded by Rotherham AHA to the education department which in turn forwarded them to the Henshaw school for the blind in Harrogate. I understand that at the school the children are under the care of the school's consultant ophthalmologist and that their general medical care will be the responsibility of the school's medical practitioner or their own general practitioner. I am glad to say that, in addition to Dr. Hosking in Sheffield, Dr. Mary Myers—the consultant in mental handicap in Rotherham—has also promised support to the children as and when required. In recent months the Hoden family has also received support and advice from the Social Services Department's specialist social worker.
I understand, too, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that all three children are making good progress at the Renshaw school for the blind in Harrogate, and that, in particular, Tina has gained a preliminary certificate in Braille in a single term, which is considered to be very good indeed. I also understand that


the education authority is maintaining close contact with the school with respect to these three children.
Let me now turn to the more general questions of research into retinitis pigmentosa and its treatment, because I know that many people in this country, including my hon. Friend and Mr. and Mrs. Holden, are deeply concerned about what is being done for sufferers from this distressing disease. Although there are no reliable official figures for retinitis pigmentosa sufferers, informed estimates suggest that there are between 10,000 and 25,000 in the United Kingdom. Many sufferers are young people. Many have families who, like the Hodens, are rightly anxious to explore every possible path that may lead to improvement in the condition. It is against this background that the issues have to be examined.
As my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for the disabled said, in replying to the Adjournment debate on 13th June, one of the major problems, which clearly has its effects on all research into the condition and its treatment, is that retinitis pigmentosa is not just one disease. It is a term used to denote a group of diseases in man which are clinically similar but have different modes of inheritance and almost certainly represent different metabolic disorders. The group of diseases is characterised by progressive retinal degeneration and is accompanied by migration of pigment-containing cells into the retina. There is no accurate estimate as to how many separate diseases are included under retinitis pigmentosa, but there are probably well over 10. The different forms vary greatly both in the time of life when the disease becomes apparent and the rate of its progress and other disabilities with which it may be associated.
My hon. Friend is probably aware that the Medical Research Council set up a working party to look into research into all aspects of retinitis pigmentosa. Among its conclusions the working party, which reported last year, highlighted two basic problems. It said:
Our understanding of development and pathological reactions of the retina is so incomplete that the mechanisms of the disease at present must be largely speculative".
and,
The delineation of the clinical picture of the human disease is still poor".

It is in the light of this present unsatisfactory state of knowledge that research into the disease and its treatment must be regarded. In fact, throughout the history of the study of retinitis pigmentosa, treatments have emerged which looked promising at the time but later dropped out of favour. Obviously this can increase the distress of sufferers from the disease and their families, whose hopes for a successful treatment can be raised and then dashed.
There has been a great deal of publicity, particularly in the past few months, about two different forms of treatment for retinitis pigmentosa, one carried out at the Opos eye clinic in Switzerland which has already been referred to tonight, and the other at the Helmholtz eye diseases research institute in Moscow. Many hon. Members have written to my right hon. Friends and myself about these treatments, often in connection with their constituents who are themselves sufferers or the relatives of sufferers, I am afraid that we have not been able to reply in encouraging terms—notwithstanding some news stories that patients have been treated there, apparently with success. May I say at once how pleased I am that some of the patients who have been treated in Switzerland or Moscow have returned with the feeling that their condition has indeed improved, but I think that for the benefit of all sufferers, including those who are considering trying to obtain these treatments, we should examine closely the currently held opinions of the great majority of ophthalmologists in this country.
Let me turn first to the treatment at the Opos clinic. I understand that the treatment consists primarily of implants on to the back of the eye of human placental and fetal tissue. In fact this form of treatment has been tried extensively throughout the world in past years but has been generally discarded. My advisers are not aware of its continued use anywhere.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.